Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Moore bombs at the Globe

Wainberg and Moore spark Web catfight with call for Inquisition

Their solution to HIV science critique: kill the messengers

Is Moore dishonest, if he denies own paper?

stinkbomb.jpegThe Globe and Mail is Canada’s equivalent of the New York Times or the London Times, and the editors there still like to keep its pages free of the kind of ill considered impolitesse that litters the Internet nowadays even in the pages of science blogs like Aetiology and paradigm dispute sites like John Moore’s AIDSTruth, where people who are probably fairly collegial in person are demons of rash certitude in Web comments and email.

Just after midnight last night it seems that a particularly offensive literary stink bomb along these lines was let off by Mark Wainberg and John Moore in those hallowed Toronto environs, but luckily they were barred from the printed editorial pages they aimed for and their unpleasantness was confined to the Globe and Mail Web pages, where it ignited some good replies from the AIDS dissenters who were its targets.

inquisition2.JPGThe basic theme of their diatribe was what anyone familiar with these two lieutenants of the HIV∫AIDS defense team would have expected. The weapons they use in defense of their livelihood enhancing belief tend to be the kind that belong to “all out war “, as Cornell macaque microbicide researcher Moore has described his strategy to the HEAL San Diego activist Michael Geiger in a frank email. Montreal University’s Wainberg is famous for advocating that HIV∫AIDS paradigm skeptics be hanged as soon as possible.

Science Sold Out is hard to deflect

sciencesoldout.jpegThe failed attempt at getting an Op Ed piece into the newspaper proper followed the rejection of a similar initiative aimed at Rebecca Culshaw, recently author of Science Sold Out (North Atlantic 2007), a slim book which contains enough damning exposure of the irrational science of HIV∫AIDS and its papers to sink the entire operation, if more than a few Congressional staff members read it.

rebeccaculshaw.jpegCulshaw is a mathematician who spent some years modeling HIV’s supposed behavior, until she threw up her hands in disgust at the falsities that poked through every seam of her efforts, and revised her opinion of the validity of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm accordingly. After two bombshell essays on LewRockwell.com, she then wrote a very sharp book, containing all one needs to know about the paucity of reason and evidence under the HIV paradigm.

Moore is evidently concerned at the threat posed by Science Sold Out, since he has mounted an embarrassingly inadequate answer to it at AIDSTruth.org. Characteristically, it is not one written not by him. He is somehow too busy to address it himself, in the familiar manner of prominent paradigm defenders of HIV. Instead, he has employed a naive graduate student he brought into his paradigm goon squad recently, which leaves him safely out of the line of fire as critics demolish its puerile contentions.

How to win against science

Since this response to Science Sold Out on his tiny, 150 a day site was so flimsy and transparently questionable Moore has followed up with his notorious technique of calling the employer of a dissenter. He and presumably his cohorts called Culshaw’s university and tried to get her fired from the faculty, but as befits any decent academic institution it sent him away with his perfidy unrewarded. His unabashed mention of this is in his piece.

Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views and that the public interest is better served by the defence of freedom of expression.

The latter sentiment appears in a letter to us — researchers on the front lines of the global AIDS crisis — from the provost and vice-president of a well-known U.S. university, after we complained that one of his faculty members had written a book based on an HIV-AIDS denialist position. The university should have shown leadership on the issue and dismissed the faculty member from her position, rather than hiding under the cloak of academic freedom.

As an indication of how far from scientific debate Moore and Wainberg’s antisocial and medically irresponsible mentality is, their call for censorship is worth quoting in full, if sensitive readers can stomach it :

EXCLUSIVE COMMENT
AIDS and the dangers of denial
MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
July 4, 2007 at 12:46 AM EDT
Imagine the scenario: The cafeteria at your child’s high school is frequented by a few individuals telling your children that it’s fine to smoke. They make passionate exhortations that statistics linking cigarettes to cancer, stroke and heart disease are flawed, because many people have smoked regularly without ever suffering ill effects. They say lung cancer is twice as common in women as it was two generations ago because of other causes, such as exposure to jet fuel fumes, a super-poison unleashed by rogue former KGB agents or a shadowy oil-driven cabal. They tell your child that the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is a hoax perpetrated by personal injury lawyers.

What would you do? Would you contact the school board or the police department and ask that these crackpots be removed from the premises? Or would you defend freedom of speech as an important right that must be preserved under all circumstances, even if it might provoke reckless behaviour and even death?

We live in an time when information is available and disseminated to society, including our children, in myriad ways. In the absence of an effective filter to protect the vulnerable, disinformation can kill. And while we spend billions of dollars worldwide in public service announcements educating our children about the perils of drug use and unsafe sex, we do little or nothing to counter the bewildering chorus of voices arguing that HIV, a virus that has killed more than 25 million people around the world in the course of a single generation, is utterly harmless.

People who argue that HIV does not cause AIDS have formed clubs, published newsletters and freely disseminated terribly harmful information on this subject through the Internet and other widely available channels. Attempts to shut down these sites or to prevent the dissemination of denialist literature are routinely dismissed on the grounds that dissenters have a right to express their views and that the public interest is better served by the defence of freedom of expression.

The latter sentiment appears in a letter to us — researchers on the front lines of the global AIDS crisis — from the provost and vice-president of a well-known U.S. university, after we complained that one of his faculty members had written a book based on an HIV-AIDS denialist position. The university should have shown leadership on the issue and dismissed the faculty member from her position, rather than hiding under the cloak of academic freedom.

We submit that the same standards of public health enforcement should apply to HIV-AIDS as to cigarette smoking and to other organisms, such as tuberculosis, that cause epidemic infectious disease.

We have long accepted that free societies do have an obligation to impose restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public safety. Among other jurisprudence, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously opined in Schenck v. United States (1919) that the right to free speech does not permit one to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre because of the injuries and deaths that would ensue as people stampeded toward the exits.

HIV denialism is lethal. It is responsible for the infections of at least several hundreds of thousands more people around the world than would have otherwise been infected and died. South African President Thabo Mbeki and his health minister, HIV denialists until last year, were among those in Africa whose refusal to be content with mere ostrich-like obliviousness, whose insistence on propagating flagrant disinformation about the disease, amounted to an arguably criminal abrogation of leadership.

Last sumíer, when political pressure generated by the International AIDS Conference in Toronto caused them to finally reverse their position, a scientific presentation there estimated that the number of HIV-infected people in South Africa was approximately 25 per cent higher than otherwise because of that country’s policies.

The reasons for AIDS denial are probably as varied as the deniers themselves, but they’re clearly not all motivated by political expediency. In the United States, the daughter of an HIV-infected woman named Christine Maggiore died of AIDS two years ago because she was not treated with anti-HIV drugs. The mother’s reasoning was that the drugs could not possibly have done any good, since they act against a virus that has nothing to do with AIDS. In Canada, a similar case resulted in the custody of two HIV-infected children being transferred to foster parents who ensured that proper care was received. Those children have thrived.

In a recent case in Australia, a man was charged with transmitting HIV to several sexual contacts. He had been fully aware of his HIV-positive status, but argued that it had not been conclusively proven that HIV was the cause of AIDS. The defence based its case in part on information found on the websites of members of HIV denialist movements. The man was convicted, but is now appealing, and a spate of similar cases are pending in North America and elsewhere.

Our lawmakers need to enact legislation to put appropriate limits on such irresponsible expression and to counter the ongoing damage perpetrated by denialists. The scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS is no less incontrovertible than the evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer and heart disease. At a time when progress in HIV-AIDS drug treatments and life expectancy is informing an alarming new complacency in our children, policy-makers should defer to proven scientific fact and stop the transmission of deadly lies.

Dr. Mark Wainberg is director of the McGill University AIDS Centre at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal. He was co-chairman of the International AIDS Conference in Toronto in August, 2006. Dr. John Moore is a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College in New York.

markwainberg2.jpegThis reversal of reality – whose “deadly lies” are we talking about, gentlemen? If the cap fits, wear it, as they say – triggered a discussion which was closed tonight, for what reason we do not know. Letters to the Editor are still allowed, however, and David Crowe has written one which is worth quoting straight away, as a most effective riposte to the unscientific behavior of the HIV paradigm’s increasingly notorious odd couple, whose giveaway behavior speaks volumes about their inner conflict and doubts about the security of their scientific position.

davidcroiwe.jpegCrowe wrote this, in our opinion hitting the bullseye of an easy target with every shot:

It is unfortunate that the Globe & Mail published a hateful screed by John Moore and Mark Wainberg, albeit only in the online edition.

It is truly amazing that these AIDS researchers would be calling for the censorship of people, including experienced doctors and scientists, who ask why, if HIV is sexually transmitted, that African women are more likely to be HIV positive than men, in many African countries. And why clean needle exchange users are more likely to become HIV-positive than drug users who never use clean needle exchanges. And why an antibody test is used to claim that a virus is present and pronounce a death sentence. And why HIV has never once been purified. And how, without purification, HIV tests can possibly be validated.

Wainberg and Moore ignore the simple evidence that many so-called denialists are alive and healthy without AIDS drugs years after being given a death sentence. It has been 15 years for Christine Maggiore, for example. It is clear that her young daughter died of an allergic reaction to amoxicillin, a penicillin-like antibiotic, not AIDS. Their claim that Eliza Jane Scovill died of AIDS is the most hateful part of their letter, followed by their proud attempt to get a scientist fired for having the courage to go against the mainstream and write a questioning book.

If these men are scientists, science is now a religion.

– David Crowe

Moore fighting inner demons

johnmoore.jpegA hard one for Moore and Wainberg to deal with honestly, clearly, but no doubt they will smear it as quickly as they can to prevent people taking its point if it finds publication.

With Moore as we have pointed out having written papers which show very clearly that he has agreed with the key points in the HIV dissent in the past, we have to wonder if he is in a state of psychological tension, a schizophrenia between lambasting dissenters for the benefit of his colleagues and others in public but quietly granting their points in private. This especially since we discovered another example of one of these papers the other day, which we will add here tomorrow when we have a moment.

**************************************************
ADDENDUM: Pussycat not a tiger
: The 1992 paper is Factors Underlying Spontaneous Inactivation and Susceptibility to Neutralization of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Scott P. Layne et al. including John P. Moore and a bunch of authors from Los Alamos Biology and Biophysics Group, Theoretical Division – that is Layne’s affiliation, with UCLA as the reprint address – NCI, Aaron Diamond Center in NY, which was John P. Moore’s affiliation at the time, courtesy of David Ho, American Bio-technologies Inc in Cambridge, and Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Virology 189, 695-714 (1992).

The conclusions of this seminal admission by ten stalwart generals of the HIV propaganda campaign were essentially that the Virus was effectively non infectious, and that even when safely away from human antibodies (which otherwise neutralize it faster than Chuck Norris could defeat a little old lady) it disintegrates all by itself, ie does a better job of getting rid of itself than Anti Retroviral drugs. The infectivity of HIV-1 was so low – ranging down to 1 in 10 million particles infectious in the batch they were studying – that the group were in effect scotching the paradigm, agreeing with Peter Duesberg that the terrorizing particle is a kitten not a tiger, biologically speaking.

Some money quotes:

For freshly harvested stocks, the ratio of infectious to noninfectious viral particles ranged from 10_(-4) to 10_(-7) in viral stocks containing 10_(9) to 10_(10) physical particles per millilietr.

The spontaneous shedding of gp120 envelope proteins from virions was exponential, and a half life of approx. 30 hr. The loss of RNA polymerase activity in virions wa also exponential, with a half life of approx. 40 hr. The physical breakup of virions and the dissolution of p24 core proteins were slow (half life less than 100hr) compared to the gp120 shedding and polymerase loss rates.

At short preincubation times, the loss of infectivity correlated with a spontaneous shedding of gp120 from virions. At longer times, an accelerating decay rate indicated that HIV requires a minimal number of gp120 molecules for efficient infection of CD4+ cells

Gee, the virus is virtually benign, according to Moore et al in 1992, decaying all by itself in a matter of days as it sets its vital components adrift. No wonder transmission is so rare as to be virtually non existent even among Africans 80% of whom are not using condoms. Why has Moore been so shy in the interim, hardly mentioning these reassuring results? One can only speculate. Sheer modesty, perhaps?

A Nobel for Moore?

Non infectious with a half life of hours! Nice electron micrographs of the Virus, too, for Perthians.

Though we have to take into account John’s mysterious burying of this reassuring news in the years since, once again we see that when it comes to digging up very good reasons not to take the Virus seriously as a health threat, there are few so competent as John Moore, and the world should show its gratitude by including him with Anthony Fauci, Robert Gallo and Peter Duesberg in the roll call of pioneers in research who would have nipped the paradigm in the bud, if only the world had listened.

In other words, while we haven’t ourselves heard of it we have no doubt that John Moore has been as assiduous behind the scenes spreading word of the harmlessness of the Virus as Peter Dueberg has been in public, and this fine Cornell researcher, despite his difficulties with microbicides turning out to enhance the spread of the Virus, deserves to be considered for the AIDS Nobel along with the aforementioned paradigm busters, even if they are at the moment senior to him.

NAR once again nominates John Moore for the Nobel for his paradigm busting advance of truth and security in science and health. Congratulations, John!
*********************************************************

Shouting “Fire!” at a crowded trough

We are not of course calling Moore a liar, or indeed the dark Mark Wainberg a conscious murderer either, because there are many more complicated and subtle reasons for intelligent human beings to take up arms against themselves in this way and attack others especially vehemently when they are really upset at themselves and their own doubts.

But we have to say that, given the enormous and overwhelming weight of scientific literature now in the balance against the HIV-causes-AIDS notion, and the complete absence of any evidence for it which withstands examination, if we were the Moore type we would probably be calling HIV claims by no other name than “deadly lies”.

aidsdrugshump.jpegAfter all, the only piece of evidence that promoters of this paradigm have left is that “the drugs work”, a statement that is so full of holes as a piece of logic let along evidence that it seems to us they cannot both claim to intelligent scientists and also that this is enough to support their belief when so much is against it, and so many lives are at stake in whether or not admittedly otherwise deadly drugs should be delivered to millions based on this rationale.

Below are the Comments which descended like barracuda on this piece of rotten meat thrown into the otherwise clear stream of public discourse at the Globe and Mail, still a banner for reasonable Canadian debate and so far immune to the viral Moore-Wainberg meme of “summary execution of dissenters guarantees unanimity in science.” Here are a handful of the best:

Michael Ellner from New York, United States writes: One need not be a virologist, medical doctor or a rocket scientist to notice that some thing is very wrong with the official line concerning “infectious” AIDS. The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease –The Evidence says – Zero Transmission! (Padian, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 146, no. 4, p. 350 , 1997) The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is transmitted via needle use — The Evidence says – “HIV infection remains rare in injecting drug users” — (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/?newsid=14954) The AIDS Establishment tells us that testing HIV-positive is proof of infection – A comprehensive review concludes, “All positive results are false positives in lieu of viral isolation (Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of Infection, Bio/Technology, 11, 6/93.) The AIDS Establishment tells us that anti-HIV treatments are extending life — The claim that early treatments extend life has been discredited by the St. Mary’s Study, (BMJ 7/96). The AIDS Establishment tells us that AIDS in Africa is caused by sexually transmitted HIV — HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission, (International Journal of STD & AIDS 2002; 13: 657±666) The AIDS Establishment tells us that “Every one is at risk for AIDS” — Public Health Officials, gay AIDS activists and the media misled us! (The Wall Street Journal, Pg 1 and A6, 5/1/96. “AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS”, Bennett and Sharpe.)

David Crowe from Calgary, Canada writes: It is certainly true that most Canadian children are taught that HIV causes AIDS in school. It is probably true that most would consider this belief that they have learned by rote to be scientific. But how can a belief be scientific when the holder has never examined the primary literature?
The fact is that HIV has never been purified, and I challenge any reader to provide a scientific reference showing that this is not true. Purification is necessary not only to prove the existence of HIV but also to validate HIV tests, which are clearly not tests for HIV, but for antibodies or genetic material that has never been proven to be directly associated with HIV.
I don’t understand how people who clearly have never read a single scientific paper regarding the matter of HIV/AIDS causation can support the censorship of research into this area. To me this is the height of ignorance. At least we don’t burn people at the stake any more or I’d be going out and buying an asbestos suit.

Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist, I, along with my thousands of colleagues in dozens of countries, am horrified at the idea of legislation of “truth”, especially when it comes to AIDS. All of you who comment that the HIV/AIDS connection is “undeniable” are merely parroting the mainstream line, and have not done the research on both sides of that argument to learn the following FACTS: 1. Robert Gallo, who was the individual pinning the HIV retrovirus to AIDS, and sex as a means of transmission, NEVER OFFERED HIS RESEARCH FOR PEER REVIEW. Amongst the top researchers in the world, the debate still rages, because the mainstream belief that HIV causes AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. 2. Retroviruses typically do NOTHING within the human body. 3. Immune crashes, regardless of cause, are REVERSIBLE with proper supplementation of nutrients, especially Vitamin C; in fact, Double Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling stated clearly (and has never been rebutted) that “you can trace every disease, every condition in the body to a mineral DEFICIENCY”. As for treatment by pharma drugs, a huge, swelling pile of bodies attests to their FAILURE and TOXICITY. 4. BOTH the Ellisa and Western Blot test packages carry box warnings about their poor accuracy and both are notorious for false positives, especially with pregnant women. 5. AZT, one of the major drugs used in AIDS treatment, is a FAILED CHEMO DRUG which was shelved in 1961 by the FDA because it was considered far too toxic and dangerous even for short, spaced administration for cancer, but now it’s okay to give daily to AIDS patients?????!!!!! These are but a few of the FACTS that the authors have failed to mention. Follow the MONEY, people! AIDS is a multi-billion dollar BUSINESS (check out “AIDS, Inc.” by Pulitzer nominee Jon Rappoport)… and a patient cured is a customer lost. Do not be so blind as to believe that the Pharma companies which benefit from this fraud are in it for your health!

Charles Geshekter from Baltimore, United States writes: First of all, everyone should carefully read the thoughtful remarks by Michael Ellner on thgis comments board.
Second, they should wonder why a so-called AIDS case in Africa is so decisively different than one in Canada. If a Zulu, Xhosa, Somali, Kikuyu, or Fulani has a persistent cough, high fever, diarrhea for 14 days, and has lost 10% of their body weight in 8 weeks they have “AIDS.” This is absurd, racist nonsense. Why is that so obviously NOT a case of AIDS in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon?
Third, the trembling, edgy censorship of Moore and Wainberg – neither of whom are physicians – is evidence of the truly shaky grounds upon which the entire viral theory of AIDS rests.
I have watched those two at public forums and could not stop laughing at their nervousness whenever serious questions about sexual behavior came up.
The key reason why Moore, Wainberg and their fellow true believers will never agree to meet their critics at an open public forum – but prefer to villify and demonize from their “safe houses” – is because their critics are so easily able to destabilize and discredit their horrific pseudo-science and to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, erroneous predictions, and sheer waste of billions of dollars on their fruitless and barren theories.
If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via hetersexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten – 10 – per year for over 25 years?

John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: As a believer that HIV causes AIDS, I was invited some years ago to look into AIDS dissidence (denialism is an invented term to discredit the dissidents). The first thing I looked for was the studies that established that HIV causes AIDS, and I immediately hit a stumbling block: I could find no such study. Now, when questioning Einstein’s Relativity, I can find a whole rash of studies: measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, time dilation in cosmic rays, the bending of light by the sun and, of course, the study that started it all, Michelson-Morley. There is no witch hunt against people who would question Relativity which, with so many studies supporting it, is rock solid. People still do question it, though: for example, the Pioneer anomaly may have ramifications on the theory. Now, if theoretical physics were to adopt the mindset Wainberg and Moore are advocating, then today’s string theorists, currently occupying a huge proportion of the important seats in physics departments, could lobby for censorship of their detractors, even though their theory so far has no evidentiary support and is not falsifiable. Rather than produce the following studies: – study establishing HIV as the probable cause of AIDS (as announced by Gallo and Heckler in 1984) – study establishing HIV as THE cause of AIDS (as announced by the CDC shortly after) – study(-ies) establishing that HIV is sexually transmissible, the AIDS establishment calls for the censorship of those who insist on these studies before adopting the HIV/AIDS quasi-religion. (end of part one)
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (part two) Here’s a quote by one of the authors (Moore, recipient of AIDS drug manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $500,000 “Freedom To Discover” grant) from the Toronto conference (I invite the reader to Google John P. Moore to gauge the vitriol/sapience ratio in his writings): “Some AIDS denialists [sic] work in bona fide universities. Some even teach students. If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it. There’s a case in Chicago I know about. Science and health journalists should talk to the editorial desk and letters editors and vice versa to ensure that AIDS denialist [sic] letters are spotted on arrival and spiked, not published.” Now why does AIDS dissidence attract such virulent calls for censorship? Clearly not because HIV/AIDS is well-established. After all, they cannot produce the most fundamental studies, and Relativity is sufficiently well-established to withstand any challenge without calls for censorship. How about to save lives? Here is where the dissidents really touch a nerve. When AZT was prescribed in 1.25 gm daily doses, most patients died within a year or two and all died within three years. AIDS deaths in the USA hovered between 50 and 60 thousand a year. These decreased as a result of reductions in dosage and the advent of combination therapy. However, the former is more responsible for this reduction, since nowadays deaths are under 20 thousand (re: CDC) – a 60-70% drop, though now fewer than ¼ of all patients are taking the medicines (re: Johns Hopkins), which could not, therefore, account for more than a 25% drop in deaths. The ramifications go way beyond this: currently, funds are grossly misappropriated in Africa for a syndrome that, over there, has the crudest of diagnoses. (end of part two)
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (third and last part)
In other words, while accepting grants and throwing themselves laurels for saving lives, these individuals are staunchly defending a paradigm that, while granting one of them half a million dollars, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and seeks to cause more without ever having to look over its shoulder. Talk about casting the first stone.

SPECIAL ADDENDUM – PHOTO OF HIV PARTICLES IN THE ABOVE PAPER. Since Comments to this post have erupted in an unexpectedly combative series of posts from some who are convinced that the Perth Group are right to say that no particles have ever been proved to be HIV, since the HIV test doesn’t do that, we hereby display the two electron micrographs included in the paper for their inspection and comment. The file size is large (1.6MB) so do not open unless you can deal with that in your browser – Click next Show tab. The arrows in the second photo point out the knobs on the surface envelope gp120, and one can also detect the outline of the core in these slices: Click this line for two HIV particles images

Here are the Comments:
MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE
Special to Globe and Mail Update
Latest comment posted at 3:26 AM EDT 04/07/07
We need laws to counter those who deny the link …Read the full article

THIS CONVERSATION IS CLOSED

Skip to the latest comment

Rae Vandenberg from Canada writes: Mark Wainberg and John Moore have not differentiated what the role of the state is in disseminating information from what individuals have the right to express. An individual in school (a student, for example) might tell students that AIDS does not kill, but the school board and teachers should not be doing so. We don’t need to silence people who are clueless. We need to make sure there are good public health programs which teach kids and the public about what is known to be true about HIV and AIDS from an objective, scientific opinion.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Stephen Bond from Toronto, Canada writes: Denny Shizzle from Bev Hills, United States, your post can be described as nothing less than ignorant in all regaurds saving one, that being that according to a strict definition of a disease AIDS does not qualify. AIDS or acquired immune deficiency syndrome is simply a description of a symptom, that being an extremely week immune system. This statement is rather irrelevant however when you consider that the vast majority of cases in which the symptom known as AIDS occurs (although it is theoreticly possible to achieve this symptom in some other fashion) are directly attributable to human immune deficiency virus or HIV. This makes the assertion that AIDS is primarily caused by HIV highly a highly valid one. Your other comments regarding what people in Africa die from are also true to a degree but rather irrelevant to the main issue. Yes, the leading cause of death in Africa is more than likely mal nutrition or parasitic infection due to unclean water (though I don’t actually know for certain). That does not mean that there are not deaths in Africa directly attributable to AIDS and HIV nor does it mean the number of deaths caused by AIDS as developed from HIV is insignificant. All this said I agree with p m and Mr. Vandenberg in that legislation on this issue seems a little bit of a stretch.
Posted 04/07/07 at 8:48 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Arzie Chant from Canada writes: HIV of course causes AIDS. This is undeniable. That said, Drs. Wahlberg and Moore do need to recognize, particularly as univerity professors, that academic freedom and freedom of speech must only ever be limited with the greatest of care. While we can all think of cases in which we think it should be limited (and Moore and Wahlberg to a great job presenting two more such cases), there is a real danger in doing so.
A far better route would be to educate our children and all people not only on specific facts, eg: the undeniable link between HIV and AIDS, but also on how to effectively research a position and reach a conclusion. The link between HIV and AIDS is clear-cut, but many other questions out there are less evident. To that end, we do our society a favour not when we try to silence dissenting voices (even the most ridiculous), but when we educate others to recognize when an argument is valid and when it is garbage.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:07 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Emmanuel M from Canada writes: We need a law that protects Truth. Not only truth about the Holocaust or AIDS, not only against the libel of individual, but the whole Truth.
Isn’t it surprising that, of the non-religious of the ten commandments, the only one not legislated in the Western world is ‘though shalt no lie’? Now, who would vote for such a law? Politicians? Ya, right.
… Did you hear about Paris Hilton?
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:16 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:29 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Mike Dolson from Toronto, Canada writes: Denny, I sure hope that was an attempt at satire.
I’m pretty sure I trust the opinions on infectious disease of doctors employed by MUHN and Cornell more than I trust yours.
That said, I think legislating speech can be problematic. However, I think there is a legal argument which can be made in this case (remember, s. 2 of the Charter is subject to reasonable limits), as the Crown could attempt to argue a restriction on a public health ground. I don’t think the odds of success are great, but it might be worth a shot.
However, I think Drs. Wainberg & Moore do bring up a more disturbing point in regards to South Africa: namely, that one cannot force people to accept the truth, and all the laws in Canada will do little to help where the problems really are.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:31 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Lyndon Akiwenzie from Toronto, Canada writes: This article, for almost half its length, is about something completely different than the topic. You don’t have to waste 3 paragraphs setting up the story.
I think its topical, but there’s good education out there and people for the most part are aware that HIV causes AIDS. If you want to avoid the topic, become chaste. Then you won’t have to worry about STD’s and AIDS.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:32 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:46 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Robert Paradis from Boucherville, Canada writes: I don’t think we can expect much from an ideological government such as the one we have. Do we realize that Christian believers (including the Pope) are against the use of preservatives (condoms) as a mean to prevent HIV transmission. Instead, they promote abstinence!?! If this is not disinformation then it is total blindness and or stupidity. Most of peoples are believers. They read daily astrology report in papers, on the Internet. They believe in chance and act for promoting it, they think. They are stubborn, once they adopt an habit, they don’t review their reasoning and keep the same habit. The worst of all is that in fact they don’t know how to reason per say, their brains are locked on beliefs. What modern times brought us is that reality is what makes the world click. Science, knowledge’s of all kinds is what we need for making our world better. The proofs that HIV causes AIDS are numerous, obvious, outstanding but we still have believers of the contrary. It is an endless fight against believers … So Sorry! We must not be shy of speaking about HIV-AIDS. WE must repeat over and over the same things. Use condom and new needle. HIV is about getting VERY SICK for the rest of your life and dying of AIDS. Oh Lord! Be creative, speed up evolution and so, deliver us from BELIEVERS!
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:46 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Paul C from Toronto, Canada writes: …. and the attacks on science and reason continue.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:49 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Paul Kruger from Vernon, Canada writes: The South African President was ‘forced’ (shamed really) to back-down from his government’s official stance on the HIV link with AIDS, but privately he (they) still hold that view – which is a pity since AIDS in South Africa is an epidemic. It’s only because of Nelson Mandella still being around that they do not make even bigger idiots out of themselves on this (and probably other) issues. However, what really upset me about this article, is the author starts to decide what ‘official views” to ‘force’ upon people. Whenever Governments decide that only they know best and ‘force’ people to ‘toe only their official line’, we will have a much bigger problem than HIV-AIDS! We really have to tolerate ‘those idiots with opposing views to us’ … heck, I meet them all the time right here on the G&M – who, by the way, does a quite bit of it’s own ‘vetting’ of ideas to ensure that the biases of their editors are supported and any detractors are silenced, case in point, their recent interview with the Anglican Bishop in Toronto who supports blessing same-sex marriages, but refused to allow any of the Bishops who opposed him at the recent Anglican synod, equal time or any opportunity to state or explain their beliefs.
Posted 04/07/07 at 10:20 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Michael Ellner from New York, United States writes: One need not be a virologist, medical doctor or a rocket scientist to notice that some thing is very wrong with the official line concerning “infectious” AIDS. The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease –The Evidence says – Zero Transmission! (Padian, et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 146, no. 4, p. 350 , 1997) The AIDS Establishment tells us that HIV/AIDS is transmitted via needle use — The Evidence says – “HIV infection remains rare in injecting drug users” — (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/?newsid=14954) The AIDS Establishment tells us that testing HIV-positive is proof of infection – A comprehensive review concludes, “All positive results are false positives in lieu of viral isolation (Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of Infection, Bio/Technology, 11, 6/93.) The AIDS Establishment tells us that anti-HIV treatments are extending life — The claim that early treatments extend life has been discredited by the St. Mary’s Study, (BMJ 7/96). The AIDS Establishment tells us that AIDS in Africa is caused by sexually transmitted HIV — HIV infections in sub-Saharan Africa not explained by sexual or vertical transmission, (International Journal of STD & AIDS 2002; 13: 657±666) The AIDS Establishment tells us that “Every one is at risk for AIDS” — Public Health Officials, gay AIDS activists and the media misled us! (The Wall Street Journal, Pg 1 and A6, 5/1/96. “AIDS FIGHT IS SKEWED BY FEDERAL CAMPAIGN EXAGGERATING RISKS”, Bennett and Sharpe.)
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:03 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Walter Bruno from Calgary, writes: I’ve been a close observer of this question for a couple of decades. Here are my thoughts: a) I’m against banning any theorist of any kind on any college campus; however, in science, everyone is subject to peer review for quality of work. Also, campuses have the right to polemicize against fraudulent claims. b) In the 1980s, the “denialists,” led by a false prophet who was not an epidemiologist, took hold. Basically, they were centred among visible minories and gay males who were the chief victims of AIDS. c) It’s always hard to talk about motivation; however, we do have the right to speculate. Among gays, the denialists wanted to destigmatize themselves, but also to facilitate and promote sexual activity in an age of fear. I have no doubt that they had little worry for public health. There’s also little doubt that this helped spread AIDS among gay men. Among visible minorities, it was always a PR campaign. African nationalists wanted to destigmatize sexual practices in their own countries. On a more general level, this was seen in North America. Recall Tony Brown’s program on national US television, mid-80s, where he attacked the head of the NYC Health Department. The latter’s crime had been to “target AIDS education to poor Blacks in New York City.” In a revolting display of PC, thin-skinned reaction, Brown called that campaign “racist,” even though population profiling is an established and essential epidemiological technique (e.g., it alone helped defeat cholera in the 19th century). The politization of AIDS on the Right is a thing to deplore. However, the fig-leaf constructed by denialists, gay and other, for the past long while, must be exposed as a conspiracy against public health.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:09 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: There is no question that Aids is a disease, and that it is sexually transmitted, and that wearing a condom protects. However, the causal link between HIV and Aids has not been proven, and to jump to that conclusion – to even insist on that argument with legal enforcement – cuts off openminded research that still needs to be done.
Posted 04/07/07 at 10:40 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Stringer’s Smarter Cousin from London, Canada writes: scott thomas: “However, the causal link between HIV and Aids has not been proven, and to jump to that conclusion..”
That is just nonsense. There is a tone of evidence that correlates the presence of the HIV virus with AIDS symptoms. People without the virus do not get AIDS. You are being deceptive at the least to suggest otherwise.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:20 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Robert Tomas from Toronto, Canada writes: The whole dispute re: HIV/AIDS connection, parallels the other two disputes, namely the global warming and evolution vs. intelligent design, heliocentric vs. geocentric solar system, flat earth etc. Ignorance and at times, plain stupidity dresses in the clock of free speech and plausible alternate explanation, in face of mountains of facts. This is nothing new – the only difference is that Copernicus did not have to put up with the defenders of the heliocentric system posting their “thoughts” and “research” on the Internet. Back to HIV/AIDS – am I the only one noticing, that all the research quoted by the HIV deniers dates from mid 1990’s????
Get with the program, people. As for legal sanction, I’ll be the first one to vote for a government that legislates jail terms for stupidity.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:32 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: Hi Stringer. It’s true that there is a correlation between HIV and Aids, but there is no causation, yet. And I am not being deceptive, I am being open minded. No need for name calling.
People do have Aids while testing negative for HIV. Because Aids is just a bunch of symptoms. And the definition of what and how many symptoms varies from place to place. So that, by definition, you could cure yourself of Aids just by crossing political boundaries where the definition changes.
It is very strange to me the vehemence with which the medical science is debated, and I wonder why that is. However, I am more interested in research moving forward, rather than positions being held stubbornly behind lines drawn in the sand.
The place where we can agree, I think, is that aids is sexually transmitted, and that wearing a condom protects. Where we disagree is also perhaps where a cure might be found.
Posted 04/07/07 at 12:57 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Just another Brick In the wall from Northern Ontario, Canada writes: Don’t chalk me up with the crazies (flat earth society) but silly me, i did not even know that there was possibiity the HIV DIDN”T cause AIDS. I must be crazy. I thought it was always a given. Thats what i was taught in school anyway.
Posted 04/07/07 at 1:40 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Pepper from Toronto, Canada writes: Dear Brick: I don’t suppose you’re crazy, but I assume that you’re very young, and you do have a funny idea of how knowledge works. I’m 61, and when I was already middle-aged (early 1980s) most people had never heard of AIDS and those who knew about it had no idea what caused it. Knowledge isn’t written in stone from eternity to eternity; it’s a continual process of development, including among other things lots of trial and lots of error. Until some centuries ago, it was generally believed that the tomato was poisonous. Imagine a time when Italians avoided eating tomatoes!
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:10 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Pepper from Toronto, Canada writes: Scott Thomas: ‘deceptive’ isn’t a ‘name’, it’s an attributive referring to an alleged action. The Cousin didn’t accuse you of habitual mendacity, but of speaking deceptively on a point intrinsic to the argument at hand. True or false, such an accusation is not an ad hominem tactic: handsome is as handsome does; if the shoe fits, wear it. Whereas, if one’s opponent, as you have done, had called himself ‘open-minded’, it would be a descent to the level of the schoolyard slanging-match to attribute the openness of his mind to the holes in his head. (I for one would never make such a suggestion!)
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:27 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Kathleen Degelder from Ottawa, Canada writes: Montreal hospital–c-difficuli infections {sp?]—Mistaken breast cancer treatments elsewhere—-Tainted blood supply years back—I”m beginning to wonder about the accredation certificates. How long did we have Mohammed or Jihadist in Canada anyways.
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:28 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
scott thomas from Canada writes: John, I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I will point out that in Africa, for example, a diagnosis of Aids does not require an HIV test at all. And in any case, the HIV test doesn’t actually test for HIV, but rather for antibodies to it. To jump from correlation to causation -and then threaten prison for those who want to look deeper- is dangerous politics and lazy science. And really John, what we need is less obfuscation on this issue (scientific and, to use your example, written) not more.
I will repeat, what we all agree on is that Aids is sexually transmitted and that a condom protects.
Posted 04/07/07 at 2:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: The HIV-AIDS link denial is a very dangerous tactic. In fact, one may call it a hate crime. Does anyone remember Jim Keegstra? Do you want anyone telling your children lies such as he told. I just don’t understand the motivation behind saying HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. Go to a hospice in Vancouver. Go to the downtown eastside of Vancouver (particularily for the moron Michael Ellner) and ask those people about the link. Go to any urban needle exchange and STD clinic and find out for yourself whether HIV becomes AIDS. It is there, out in the open, for all to see. I believe denying the link between HIV-AIDS is a criminal act.
Posted 04/07/07 at 4:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
J.C. Davies from Canada writes: “Imagine the scenario: The cafeteria at your child’s high school is frequented by a few individuals telling your children that it’s fine to smoke. They make passionate exhortations that statistics linking cigarettes to cancer, stroke and heart disease are flawed, because many people have smoked regularly without ever suffering ill effects. They say lung cancer is twice as common in women as it was two generations ago because of other causes, such as exposure to jet fuel fumes, a super-poison unleashed by rogue former KGB agents or a shadowy oil-driven cabal. They tell your child that the link between cigarette smoking and cancer is a hoax perpetrated by personal injury lawyers.”
Actually I ‘ve heard people say something like this about marijuana smoke countless times, even in the G&M.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:38 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
David Crowe from Calgary, Canada writes: It is certainly true that most Canadian children are taught that HIV causes AIDS in school. It is probably true that most would consider this belief that they have learned by rote to be scientific. But how can a belief be scientific when the holder has never examined the primary literature?
The fact is that HIV has never been purified, and I challenge any reader to provide a scientific reference showing that this is not true. Purification is necessary not only to prove the existence of HIV but also to validate HIV tests, which are clearly not tests for HIV, but for antibodies or genetic material that has never been proven to be directly associated with HIV.
I don’t understand how people who clearly have never read a single scientific paper regarding the matter of HIV/AIDS causation can support the censorship of research into this area. To me this is the height of ignorance. At least we don’t burn people at the stake any more or I’d be going out and buying an asbestos suit.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:44 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist, I, along with my thousands of colleagues in dozens of countries, am horrified at the idea of legislation of “truth”, especially when it comes to AIDS. All of you who comment that the HIV/AIDS connection is “undeniable” are merely parroting the mainstream line, and have not done the research on both sides of that argument to learn the following FACTS: 1. Robert Gallo, who was the individual pinning the HIV retrovirus to AIDS, and sex as a means of transmission, NEVER OFFERED HIS RESEARCH FOR PEER REVIEW. Amongst the top researchers in the world, the debate still rages, because the mainstream belief that HIV causes AIDS HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. 2. Retroviruses typically do NOTHING within the human body. 3. Immune crashes, regardless of cause, are REVERSIBLE with proper supplementation of nutrients, especially Vitamin C; in fact, Double Nobel Laureate Dr. Linus Pauling stated clearly (and has never been rebutted) that “you can trace every disease, every condition in the body to a mineral DEFICIENCY”. As for treatment by pharma drugs, a huge, swelling pile of bodies attests to their FAILURE and TOXICITY. 4. BOTH the Ellisa and Western Blot test packages carry box warnings about their poor accuracy and both are notorious for false positives, especially with pregnant women. 5. AZT, one of the major drugs used in AIDS treatment, is a FAILED CHEMO DRUG which was shelved in 1961 by the FDA because it was considered far too toxic and dangerous even for short, spaced administration for cancer, but now it’s okay to give daily to AIDS patients?????!!!!! These are but a few of the FACTS that the authors have failed to mention. Follow the MONEY, people! AIDS is a multi-billion dollar BUSINESS (check out “AIDS, Inc.” by Pulitzer nominee Jon Rappoport)… and a patient cured is a customer lost. Do not be so blind as to believe that the Pharma companies which benefit from this fraud are in it for your health!
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:56 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Of course all the evidence shows that infection with HIV leads to AIDS.However,our kids have been taught a load of nonsense for years at public expense.Let’s look at religion based schools for starters.
Posted 04/07/07 at 5:59 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
richard kearns from los angeles, United States writes: to the editors: censorship hasn’t worked before. why should it work now? will denialism go away if censored? no. we need a cure. we need a vaccine. those would be excellent responses to denialist “arguments,” if any other need required identifying. why don’t we have a vaccine (which would also be a cure)? frank greeve wrote in the may 22, 2005 charlotte, nc observer: “the basic problem is that vaccines, which typically offer long-term immunity from one battery of shots, aren’t nearly as profitable as drugs that are taken daily. pfizer’s cholesterol-lowering lipitor, for example, with $10 billion in global sales, grosses more than all the world’s vaccines combined.” our lack of a cure is not caused by denialism. nor will or are or were the millions of deaths worldwide excused by greed. caused by it? yes. picking denialism as a major issue is a waste of resources. namaste richard kearns rk@aids-write.org http://aids-write.org los angeles, ca
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:05 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: So, David and Dee, how long will it be before you begin advocating sex without condoms. You two cannot be serious. While the science may be somewhat flawed, which of you is willing to take the risk? I most certainly am not and I do not expect children to be willing to take that risk either.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:06 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Simon Leigh from Canada writes: But even those who believe that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS must know that infecting someone else with a virus is illegal! If they believe that unprotected intercourse does not spread disease or, for that matter, pregnancy, they should be laughed out of bed. Penetrative sex IS dangerous, and schoolkids should be taught this until they’re clear about what it means. Sex with a condom may not be quite as much fun, but it’s less nerve-wracking.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:12 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Charles Geshekter from Baltimore, United States writes: First of all, everyone should carefully read the thoughtful remarks by Michael Ellner on thgis comments board.
Second, they should wonder why a so-called AIDS case in Africa is so decisively different than one in Canada. If a Zulu, Xhosa, Somali, Kikuyu, or Fulani has a persistent cough, high fever, diarrhea for 14 days, and has lost 10% of their body weight in 8 weeks they have “AIDS.” This is absurd, racist nonsense. Why is that so obviously NOT a case of AIDS in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon?
Third, the trembling, edgy censorship of Moore and Wainberg – neither of whom are physicians – is evidence of the truly shakey grounds upon which the entire viral theory of AIDS rests.
I have watched those two at public forums and could not stop laughing at their nervousness whenever serious questions about sexual behavior came up.
The key reason why Moore, Wainberg and their fellow true believers will never agree to íeet their critics at an open public forum – but prefer to villify and demonize from their “safe houses” – is because their critics are so easily able to destabilize and discredit their horrific pseudo-science and to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, erroneous predictions, and sheer waste of billions of dollars on their fruitless and barren theories.
If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via hetersexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten – 10 – per year for over 25 years?
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:14 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
gord winters from Canada writes: people appear to be debatinghte nature of truth without any training.
good luck hicks!
Dee Nicholson from Canada writes: As a health freedom activist,
oh god that’s funny……
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:21 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment

Jennifer Rollison from Canada writes: Charles, what does this mean actually? “…If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via heterosexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten – 10 – per year for over 25 years?” What about AIDS in 1st Nations communities or with women who have husbands on the ‘down low’. To hold San Francisco up to scrutiny without taking anywhere else or any other factors into consideration is, simply, ignorance. I couldn’t really care less about the two authors of this article. What I do care about are the people I love who have died from or are living a limited life because of HIV-AIDS. For many of us this is not an esoteric argument but a fact of life. How do you account for us and, more specifically, people who have or have died from HIV-AIDS?
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:22 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: Realistically HIV (whatever its role in AIDS) is almost impossible to catch without considerable effort. The issue is, however, useful as a catspaw to promote condom use during sex that protects against far more communicable diseases like syphillis, gonorrhea or chlamydia.
Posted 04/07/07 at 6:27 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
West Coast Guy from Canada writes: Many of you folks miss an important point. In fact the moderated discussion here proves that the premise of the editorial is wrong. Discussion must be allowed and people who propagate wrong, hateful, heinous information must be called out by the rest of us who know better. But to limit what someone can say, just because it’s wrong, even if it potentially could cause harm (“potential” being the important distinction between this and yelling “fire” in a theatre), starts us down a horrible slippery slope. Who gets to decide what is OK to say and what should be chargeable? Some moral, or scientific majority? Yikes. I dislike Canada’s anti-hate laws for the same reason. I will stand, vote, write and fight with my Jewish, gay, etc., brothers and sisters to fight the propaganda, to expose the spreaders of it for what they are, but I will never back any law that prevents them from saying what they think.
So, when the authors ask:
“Or would you defend freedom of speech as an important right that must be preserved under all circumstances, even if it might provoke reckless behaviour and even death?”
The answer has to be: “yes, at any cost”.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:35 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: Quite bemused about Michael Ellner (no medical qualifications, evidence quoted that AIDS is not an infectious disease is only 10 years old, doesn’t even know how to properly cite medical journal articles) and Charles Geshketer, long-suffering HIV dissident and also without any relevant biomedical background, going on about HIV science that by definition they’re not trained to understand. Unlike Mr Geshekter who enjoys travels to Africa every now and then I have lived in southern Africa for 5 years and returned only recently. Anyway, there’s nothing racist about Africans dying in huge numbers of AIDS defining illnesses. Nothing racist about the definition either. Any decent racist would continue denying that there is a massive problem and see the pandemic continue unabated among young Africans.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: ps, when I say that there is nothing racist about Africans dying in huge numbers on AIDS defining illnesses I am, of course replying to Mr Geshekter’s claim (made in his posting above) that the disease definition as it is applied to African people was somehow racist.
Posted 04/07/07 at 7:48 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
GlynnMhor of Skywall, Azeroth from Canada writes: udo schuklenk from Kingston, Canada writes: “Any decent racist would continue denying that there is a massive problem and see the pandemic continue unabated among young Africans.”
Those who point to promiscuous behaviour typical to many black african cultures as a problematic contributing factor in the spread of HIV-AIDS are, however, routinely castigated as if they were racists.
Posted 04/07/07 at 8:17 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: As a believer that HIV causes AIDS, I was invited some years ago to look into AIDS dissidence (denialism is an invented term to discredit the dissidents). The first thing I looked for was the studies that established that HIV causes AIDS, and I immediately hit a stumbling block: I could find no such study. Now, when questioning Einstein’s Relativity, I can find a whole rash of studies: measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, time dilation in cosmic rays, the bending of light by the sun and, of course, the study that started it all, Michelson-Morley. There is no witch hunt against people who would question Relativity which, with so many studies supporting it, is rock solid. People still do question it, though: for example, the Pioneer anomaly may have ramifications on the theory. Now, if theoretical physics were to adopt the mindset Wainberg and Moore are advocating, then today’s string theorists, currently occupying a huge proportion of the important seats in physics departments, could lobby for censorship of their detractors, even though their theory so far has no evidentiary support and is not falsifiable. Rather than produce the following studies: – study establishing HIV as the probable cause of AIDS (as announced by Gallo and Heckler in 1984) – study establishing HIV as THE cause of AIDS (as announced by the CDC shortly after) – study(-ies) establishing that HIV is sexually transmissible, the AIDS establishment calls for the censorship of those who insist on these studies before adopting the HIV/AIDS quasi-religion. (end of part one)
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:36 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (part two) Here’s a quote by one of the authors (Moore, recipient of AIDS drug manufacturer Bristol-Myers Squibb’s $500,000 “Freedom To Discover” grant) from the Toronto conference (I invite the reader to Google John P. Moore to gauge the vitriol/sapience ratio in his writings): “Some AIDS denialists [sic] work in bona fide universities. Some even teach students. If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it. There’s a case in Chicago I know about. Science and health journalists should talk to the editorial desk and letters editors and vice versa to ensure that AIDS denialist [sic] letters are spotted on arrival and spiked, not published.” Now why does AIDS dissidence attract such virulent calls for censorship? Clearly not because HIV/AIDS is well-established. After all, they cannot produce the most fundamental studies, and Relativity is sufficiently well-established to withstand any challenge without calls for censorship. How about to save lives? Here is where the dissidents really touch a nerve. When AZT was prescribed in 1.25 gm daily doses, most patients died within a year or two and all died within three years. AIDS deaths in the USA hovered between 50 and 60 thousand a year. These decreased as a result of reductions in dosage and the advent of combination therapy. However, the former is more responsible for this reduction, since nowadays deaths are under 20 thousand (re: CDC) – a 60-70% drop, though now fewer than ¼ of all patients are taking the medicines (re: Johns Hopkins), which could not, therefore, account for more than a 25% drop in deaths. The ramifications go way beyond this: currently, funds are grossly misappropriated in Africa for a syndrome that, over there, has the crudest of diagnoses. (end of part two)
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:39 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Bleau from Quebec, Canada writes: (third and last part)
In other words, while accepting grants and throwing themselves laurels for saving lives, these individuals are staunchly defending a paradigm that, while granting one of them half a million dollars, has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and seeks to cause more without ever having to look over its shoulder. Talk about casting the first stone.
Posted 04/07/07 at 9:40 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
CD W from coldwater, Canada writes: So when will they arrest all of the left intelligencia who got ddt banned and then caused the deaths of 30 million Africans from malaria, and now only reticently agree that nets with ddt might be a good thing? In regards to aids in north america, the specific number ratios of the infected have not really changed significantly since 1986. You can say you wish to educate, but those who are to receive the education always say, “you cant change human nature” , well I suppose then we cannot change human outcomes of human nature. Be sure to wear you gloves and masks and stay celibate.
Posted 04/07/07 at 11:05 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

166 Responses to “Moore bombs at the Globe”

  1. MacDonald Says:

    Truthseeker,

    I see Servo’s frank language has finally moved the mountain everybody thought was determined to stand until washed to the sea – but perhaps that’s what’s really happened? The letter from Crowe you praise as “in our opinion hitting the bullseye of an easy target with every shot” is perthian through and through, from clean needles transmitting HIV more efficiently than dirty ones to the purification of HIV/lack of gold standard issue.

    But shame on you for not mentioning another very eloquent comment already published. including its reference to Michael Ellner’s comment:

    Charles Geshekter from Baltimore, United States writes: First of all, everyone should carefully read the thoughtful remarks by Michael Ellner on this comments board.
    Second, they should wonder why a so-called AIDS case in Africa is so decisively different than one in Canada. If a Zulu, Xhosa, Somali, Kikuyu, or Fulani has a persistent cough, high fever, diarrhea for 14 days, and has lost 10% of their body weight in 8 weeks they have “AIDS.” This is absurd, racist nonsense. Why is that so obviously NOT a case of AIDS in Alberta, Quebec or the Yukon?
    Third, the trembling, edgy censorship of Moore and Wainberg – neither of whom are physicians – is evidence of the truly shakey grounds upon which the entire viral theory of AIDS rests.
    I have watched those two at public forums and could not stop laughing at their nervousness whenever serious questions about sexual behavior came up.
    The key reason why Moore, Wainberg and their fellow true believers will never agree to meet their critics at an open public forum – but prefer to villify and demonize from their “safe houses” – is because their critics are so easily able to destabilize and discredit their horrific pseudo-science and to point out the flaws, inconsistencies, erroneous predictions, and sheer waste of billions of dollars on their fruitless and barren theories.
    If everyone is at risk for “AIDS” via hetersexual contacts, then why has the total cumulative number of “AIDS” cases among heterosexual women in San Francisco amounted to less than ten – 10 – per year for over 25 years?

  2. MacDonald Says:

    John Bleau’s second comment (third from last) is also right on target.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    This mountain has moved just about as far as the mountain it opposes, MacD, so maybe we are interpreting the Crowe letter a little differently? Thanks for noticing Geshekter and Ellner’s contributions, which like Crowe’s are pretty good bundles of up to date points, it seems to us. Maybe a NAR collection of these poison tipped arrows should be assembled… but first, Moore’s self revealing paper will be added just as soon as time allows.

  4. Dan Says:

    I’m not sure if it’s a case of “outrage fatigue”, or that Moore and friends are such obvious propagandists as to immediately discredit themselves, that I can’t get worked up about this piece.

    Moore and friends are loosing their grip, they sound more and more desperate. Perhaps it’s partly because the gay community is showing signs of letting go of it’s grip on this nightmare. Should the gays let go of AIDS, it will be done and over with.

    Besides the GLT article recently, and statement by the editor that they will allow debate, Andrew Sullivan and Michael Petrelis have been asking that the gay community relax a bit on the hysteria. Prominent gay writers saying that the sky isn’t falling? Yikes! That, in and of itself must be quite upsetting for the orthodoxy. They rely on us gays to constantly fan the flames of hysteria and fear.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Gentlemen, the post has been beefed up now with the promised detailing of the Moore paper in which he shoots himself in the knee, paradigm-wise, and the messages we all admire quoted in highlight, as seems appropriate, thanks McD.

    Dan, don’t say anything! Moore and Wainberg are the most effective boosters of paradigm doubt around.

  6. Dan Says:

    Non infectious with a half life of hours! Nice electron micrographs of the Virus, too, for Perthians

    What a snide, mean-spirited remark.

  7. Servo Says:

    Please Stop The Duesberg Follies. WHAT IS THE STANDARD you are imaginarily using to say that you have any particular particle there? There is none.

    DUESBERG IS WRONG WAS WRONG WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG.

    There is no particular thing, dummy. What’s the reference standard? What is it? There is none? Idiot!

    ((Bad language removed. – Ed.))

  8. Servo Says:

    For freshly harvested stocks, the ratio of infectious to noninfectious viral particles ranged from 10_(-4) to 10_(-7) in viral stocks containing 10_(9) to 10_(10) physical particles per millilietr.

    The spontaneous shedding of gp120 envelope proteins from virions was exponential, and a half life of approx. 30 hr. The loss of RNA polymerase activity in virions wa also exponential, with a half life of approx. 40 hr. The physical breakup of virions and the dissolution of p24 core proteins were slow (half life less than 100hr) compared to the gp120 shedding and polymerase loss rates.

    At short preincubation times, the loss of infectivity correlated with a spontaneous shedding of gp120 from virions. At longer times, an accelerating decay rate indicated that HIV requires a minimal number of gp120 molecules for efficient infection of CD4+ cells

    What is this even in reference too? Link the whole paper, don’t repost it, god you write too much, just link it. And then we’ll review it and you’ll be forced to admit that what they cultured or what they think they cultured is non-specific retroviral activity –

    and you know how youll know? Because there is NO REFERENCE STANDARD that tells them what they’re looking at,

    Cart after horse, cart after horse, you kiss ass Duesberg apostle!

    ((Low grade expressions removed.-Ed.))

  9. Servo Says:

    ADDENDUM: Pussycat not a tiger: The 1992 paper is Factors Underlying Spontaneous Inactivation and Susceptibility to Neutralization of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Scott P. Layne et al.

    POST THE PAPER AND THE IMAGES ON A SEPARATE PAGE IN FULL BECAUSE ITS BS THAT THERES ANYTHING IN VIVO ABOUT IT.

    including John P. Moore and a bunch of authors from Los Alamos Biology and Biophysics Group, Theoretical Division – that is Layne’s affiliation, with UCLA as the reprint address – NCI, Aaron Diamond Center in NY, which was John P. Moore’s affiliation at the time, courtesy of David Ho, American Bio-technologies Inc in Cambridge, and Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Virology 189, 695-714 (1992).

    The conclusions of this seminal admission by ten stalwart generals of the HIV propaganda campaign

    YOU ARE ON THE HIV PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN – WHAT’S THE REFERENCE STANDARD?

    were essentially that the Virus was effectively non infectious,

    and that even when safely away from human antibodies

    SO ITS ANOTHER PIECE OF IN VITRO BS, AND YOU THINK THIS COUNTS AS A VIRUS???? THAT YOU CAN FIND IN PEOPLE? THAT HAS NO REFERENCE STANDARD ANYWHERE??

    (which otherwise neutralize it faster than Chuck Norris could defeat a little old lady) it disintegrates all by itself, ie does a better job of getting rid of itself than Anti Retroviral drugs. The infectivity of HIV-1 was so low –

    ranging down to 1 in 10 million particles infectious in the batch they were studying – that the group were in effect scotching the paradigm, agreeing with Peter Duesberg that the terrorizing particle is a kitten not a tiger, biologically speaking.

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

    ((Most inarticulate crudities erased. -Ed.))

  10. Truthseeker Says:

    Having removed most of the bad language and insults to the blog host we have carefully studied the past three messages and cannot find a single point that needs to be replied to, since no cogent ones are made, just contradictions.

    However, let’s bear in mind that these instances of inarticulate frustration and inability to argue with any intelligence or evidence are what help prove that the claim that infuriates is likely to be true.

    The HIV∫AIDS claim where Moore, Fauci and Gallo propose and where Peter Duesberg objects is precisely the opposite case ie one where we can conclude that it is wrong simply by weighing the nature and performance of the proponents versus the dissidents.

    Judging on this basis saves a great deal of time, and it may be what all smart people do.

    Thanks to Servo for making the decision so clear in the case of the Perthian claim. The only reason we have removed so many of the giveaway insults is that they are too lowgrade even to include as evidence before the finely tuned sensibilities and carefully honed intelligence of the usual viewers of this blog.

    In fact any more of them risks summary deletion owing to the laziness of the blog host faced with the task of extracting some kind of sense out of the offense. The Autopolitesse software is set to instantly delete drivel if it is switched on.

  11. MacDonald Says:

    TS, servo is right about this, not that he is not right about other things but this in particular, what purpose does it serve to quote a couple of snippets out of a scientific text (about an HIV molecular clone), then draw the conclusions you do? If,

    The conclusions of this seminal admission by ten stalwart generals of the HIV propaganda campaign were essentially that the Virus was effectively non infectious, and that even when safely away from human antibodies (which otherwise neutralize it faster than Chuck Norris could defeat a little old lady) it disintegrates all by itself, ie does a better job of getting rid of itself than Anti Retroviral drugs,

    Could we at least get the quote where they says so in their own words?

    So what if the infectious particles were one to 10 gazillion, and their half life 30 seconds if we have no comparison, context or frame of reference to to put this into?

    As for the pictures… I refer to Servo.

  12. MartinDKessler Says:

    I guess I’m a bit confused. Is this a basic scientific question “Servo” is asking? What is “Servo” looking for? Maybe this question has never been answered satisfactorily by anyone. Now if the question “Servo” is asking has been declared “simple”, maybe it’s just the way “Servo” put it. I’m not looking for a double-speak translation of the question but put in a way that points to the answer.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    Oops the AutoPolitesse software has been switched on and seems to have automatically removed the latest contribution of insults and demonic shouting by Servo, sorry about that, but you were warned.

    We have been through all this before, haven’t we McD? Martin it is about whether the Virus is a coherent entity or a fantasy one made up of bits and pieces floating around in the body like biological flotsam. But there seems no point at all in dealing with the mentally and linguistically defective posts of whichever false nonentity Servo may be. Why is this man hiding behind a pseudonym? If you feel so strongly, stand up and stand for what you believe in, Servo, instead of capitalizing insults which guarantees disrespect.

    These are interesting questions where anything new by now has to be subtle, clever and unexpected, and Servo is none of these, so why should he be catered to? This is a blog for the clever, subtle and perceptive people like MacD who can contribute interesting points, not the army of “demons of rash certitude in Web comments and email”, to quote the urbane but humble and apparently prescient blog host. We have been through all the standard issue arguments that the supposedly Fantasy Virus has the strange habit of retaining the same genes from one lab to the next as it travels through the mail, that it infects and clones OK, and that its supposed mutations are followed accordingly, and that not even Duesberg the champion questioner of the field if not biology in general is bothering to doubt it.

    If some inarticulate and belligerently rude Web pinhead wishes to let off steam on these points all we are prepared to do is train him like a street dog to mind his manners when inside the restaurant where he seeks scraps.

    Anyhow must admit we cannot understand exactly why the great MacD as well as the linguistically and socially challenged Servo complains that we don’t serve up the entire paper instead of giving you its title and quoting directly from the abstract. Why did you not try PubMed? The slot to use is PubMed Single Citation Matcher. But you know that. Perhaps you need help if connecting from Thailand, we wouldn’t know. How easy is it to connect to the Internet in that delightful country? Here anyway is the abstract from which we quoted:

    National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)
    PubMed

    1: Virology. 1992 Aug;189(2):695-714.Links
    Factors underlying spontaneous inactivation and susceptibility to neutralization of human immunodeficiency virus.
    Layne SP, Merges MJ, Dembo M, Spouge JL, Conley SR, Moore JP, Raina JL, Renz H, Gelderblom HR, Nara PL.

    Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico 87545.

    To determine the factors governing inactivation and neutralization, physical, chemical, and biological assays were performed on a molecular clone of human immunodeficiency type 1 (HIV-1HXB3). This included quantitative electron microscopy, gp120 and p24 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, reverse, transcriptase assays, and quantitative infectivity assays. For freshly harvested stocks, the ratio of infectious to noninfectious viral particles ranged from 10(-4) to 10(-7) in viral stocks containing 10(9) to 10(10) physical particles per milliliter. There were relatively few gp120 knobs per HIV particle, mean approximately 10 when averaged over the total particle count. Each HIV particle contained a mean approximately 5 x 10(-17) g of p24 and approximately 2 x 10(-16) g of RNA polymerase, corresponding to about 1200 and 80 molecules, respectively. The spontaneous shedding of gp120 envelope proteins from virions was exponential, with a half-life approximately 30 hr. The loss of RNA polymerase activity in virons was also exponential, with a half-life approximately 40 hr. The physical breakup of virions and the dissolution of p24 core proteins were slow (half-life greater than 100 hr) compared to the gp120 shedding and polymerase loss rates. The decay of HIV-1 infectivity was found to obey superimposed single- and multihit kinetics. At short preincubation times, the loss of infectivity correlated with spontaneous shedding of gp120 from virions. At longer times, an accelerating decay rate indicated that HIV requires a minimal number of gp120 molecules for efficient infection of CD4+ cells. The blocking activity of recombinant soluble CD4 (sCD4) and phosphonoformate (foscarnet) varied with the number of gp120 molecules and number of active RNA polymerase molecules per virion, respectively. These results demonstrate that the physical state of virions greatly influences infectivity and neutralization. The knowledge gained from these findings will improve the reliability of in vitro assays, enhance the study of wild-type strains, and facilitate the evaluation of potential HIV therapeutics and vaccines.

    PMID: 1386485 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    More than that you’ll have to wait until we can get a full electronic text version from the library.

  14. MartinDKessler Says:

    Thank you. Is that the way more common viruses like the polio virus behave? Now Duesberg said a long time ago that the retrovirus called HIV was very conventional that it did not behave much differently than other similar entities. The above abstract appears to verify what Duesberg has been saying all along. That is, that what is called HIV is really a biological entity that that is just part of our makeup – endogenous rather than exogenous, harmless rather than harmful.

  15. MacDonald Says:

    Regardless which country you are in, this is what the authors say in the conclusion to their stud… I mean their abstract:

    These results demonstrate that the physical state of virions greatly influences infectivity and neutralization. The knowledge gained from these findings will improve the reliability of in vitro assays, enhance the study of wild-type strains, and facilitate the evaluation of potential HIV therapeutics and vaccines

    So once you’re finished with IP addresses, 3rd World condescension and taking cheap shots at posters who are prevented from answering back, would you care to show your mastery of the subject by explaining to Martin, Dan and the rest, if there are any more, how you got from that to this?:

    The conclusions of this seminal admission by ten stalwart generals of the HIV propaganda campaign were essentially that the Virus was effectively non infectious, and that even when safely away from human antibodies (which otherwise neutralize it faster than Chuck Norris could defeat a little old lady) it disintegrates all by itself, ie does a better job of getting rid of itself than Anti Retroviral drugs

  16. MacDonald Says:

    We have been through all the standard issue arguments that the supposedly Fantasy Virus has the strange habit of retaining the same genes from one lab to the next as it travels through the mail, that it infects and clones OK

    An artifact sent through the mail will amazingly enough remain self-identical, “retain the same genes” even when posted form A to B.

    And it cannot be infecting and cloning that ok after all, since you’ve just concluded with the ten stalwarts that the essentially non-infectious artifact disintegrates all by itself in a matter of hours.

  17. Dan Says:

    TS,

    we’re going to have to agree to disagree. ‘Cause there aint no there, there.

    What there is, is a cartoon of a retrovirus, created out of a consensus of what that retrovirus should be. This cartoon is used to instill the deepest fears and anxieties in people around the globe, who can then be easily manipulated into swallowing expensive poisons.

    Personally, I don’t know anybody who calls themselves a “Duesbergian” or a “Perthian”. I find the idea of placing people in these camps to be divisive, and frankly, insulting to people’s intelligence. Maybe this is because all the dissidents I know listen to many points of view, are critical thinkers and aren’t really the type for hero worship. Maybe the people I know are an anomaly. So perhaps your dividing people into camps is a good thing. Let us know. My friends could simply be the exception to the rule.

  18. Truthseeker Says:

    That’s right, Martin, you expressed it perfectly. You got it. This is John Moore et al 15 years ago, confirming that the Virus is a kitten, and no tiger. Active virus can be as low as one in ten million virions, and the stuff falls apart all by itself in a few days. And this is in the lab, safely away from antibodies. All hidden behind a curtain of gobbledegook far beyond the ken of busy science and medical writers, and quietly hidden in a drawer for a decade and a half. But NAR sleuthing has unearthed it. This is the magic of literature review. PubMed may be the greatest tool for truth ever delivered into the hands of the public by a government. Whoever is responsible deserves the Nobel prize for Peace, without a doubt. But will he/she get it? Alas, not, we wot.

    But MacDonald may disagree, since he seems to be rushing to the defense of Moore, or is it Servo, and saying that this is all in the lab and involves bits and pieces and not actual Virus, and not in the body, where the Virus may rampage and kill us all. This seems inconsistent, to say the least, and since cloning and infection is how they got their supply of virions to experiment with, we are not sure why he questions that either, but we wait for this mystery to be elucidated.

    Perhaps it was in his last post, which regrettably the AutoPolitesse software automatically removed since it contained insults to the long suffering blog host, who has lost patience with insults of any kind and has set AutoPolitesse to remove any such post unread. The software dealt with the last screaming post of Servo by removing it summarily also, and by posting the email address and IP of the miscreant, in case anyone recognized it. MacDonald objects to this for some reason, but we can take no responsibility, since this is an automatic function of AutoPolitesse.

    But we certainly agree with MacDonald’s attitude towards Moore’s paper. It should be examined with a microscope. Here we have Moore fifteen years ago with his name on a paper by some of the best scientists in the field which says that when examined in the lab the Virus is a pussy. Yet today he tells us the Virus is a tiger, and strenuous and very expensive efforts must be made at vast expense – thankyou Mr Squibb for the half mill, but we may need more soon! – to develop an ointment to smear on women’s private parts to kill it and prevent an act of love turning into an act of murder for which the perpetrator deserves to be locked up for years.

    The $500,000 question is, why is Moore’s name on a paper that shows the tiger is a pussy cat without a single claw? Maybe his new friend MacDonald will explain this mystery for us. Or Dan, whose enduring politeness is an example to all of us here.

  19. MacDonald Says:

    It is reeeeeeaaall simple dude, either the virus infects and clones (replicates) ‘ok’, or it doesn’t.

    Since, as you so astutely pointed out, Moore et al. musta gotten their supply by infecting and cloning, it would seem the “virus ” infects and clones ‘ok’ even as it is falling apart, yeah?

    But actually We don’t know exactly how these “particles” were put together and measured at every step, cuz we’re denialists so a quick glance at the abstract must suffice. No need to go over the actual body of the paper with or without a microscope to substantiate our critique, that might very well be spot on or maybe completely mistaken.

  20. Truthseeker Says:

    You cannot read the abstract? You think they misinterpreted their own paper in their abstract? You think we don’t have the paper in hand? You cannot understand the wording? You think the wording is vague or subject to different interpretations? You are looking for some kind of loophole? They stuck the virus together with invalid assumptions? OK that’s it. How did they get their virions? From their heads? That’s what you suspect?

    We do like the way you make the assumption that the particles were “put together”. Also your assumption that we didn’t have the full paper in hand. Or that we haven’t studied it in detail. Actually on the last point you were correct. We just assumed that the abstract meant what it said. Good luck with your support of the new Moore when we get you a full text copy. Maybe you will find out that the abstract was all a mistake. It referred to another paper altogether.

    Do you really think that the abstract is misleading? Do we really have to double check? If so what is it that you wish to double check? We will quote it for you. The method of preparation is your preoccupation, right? When we get back from an urgent errand we will transcribe it for you. We hope you are right. If you are it will be an excellent point.

    PS OK: “Materials and Methods. Viral Stocks. H9 cell cultures (American Type Culture Collection, CRL 8543) were inoculated with HIV-1HXB3 ((from Bob Gallo)) as previously described (Layne et al. 1991). After two days, infected H9 cultures (1000 ml total volume) were clarified by centrifugation (20 degrees, 20 minutes, 10,000g) and frozen (-70 degrees) in 10 ml aliquotes. Also to monitor and optimize the titer of HIV-1HXB3 stocks, infected H9 cultures were incubated for periods of 4 to 6 days. At daily intervals, 5-ml aliquots of supernatant were removed, clarified by centrifugation, and frozen. Subsequently, these samples were assayed in parallel for infectious units.”

    We”ll get the Layne 1991 paper. By the way, this was the last Layne paper on HIV. Guess his results were so embarrassing he was’t allowed to do anything more, even though he was chairman of the virology department.

  21. Servo Says:

    WITH ALL THE STUDIES IN CANCER CELLS IS ANY PARTICULAR PARTICLE???

    Please answer NOW! Or do not post anything anymore on your make-believe ‘hiv’ particle, because it ain’t there dummy! What’s the standard? WHAT’S THE STANDARD YOU ARE USING TO CLAIM YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THERE AT ALL?

    Please answer, answer, answer. Standard Standard Standard. What is is? Answer now PLLLLEEEAAASSSEEE or shut it!

  22. Truthseeker Says:

    Apparently there is some disadvantage to posting Servo’s email and IP address. Apparently Servo feels free to insult blog hosts he disagrees with and then finds himself exposed to the world, and feels himself poorly treated. But is this not poetic justice, especially when not intended by the victim of Servo’s Web rage? Apparently Servo is some nonentity who is unfamiliar with the manners of ordinary social discourse among the educated. Apparently Servo imagines he will get the donkey to move by kicking it. Who are these people? They emerge from the woodwork like boll weevils.

    Well, if it is in some way compromising to have one’s email told the world, perhaps it is because one has some dim consciousness in one’s primeval brain that one has behaved badly in some way, and that the world may send corrective email. AutoPolitesse is not set to do this at the moment, but it can be arranged, we imagine.

    Meanwhile the great MacD has derailed, too. He asks for logic and evidence, but these have already been provided. We are not aware of his marital status or sexual preferences but would not broadcast them if we did. Just as we will edit out Servo’s email address now that we are aware of his sensitivity on this front. Though we cannot imagine why he doesn’t use a dynamic IP if he cares so much for guarding it.

  23. MacDonald Says:

    So what purpose was served by the victim of Servo’s net rage in posting an IP address?

    What scientific point was addressed?

  24. Truthseeker Says:

    What’s the standard?

    Well, Servo, since you ask so insistently that it appears to be necessary to your mental health, our standard is trust in the clear electron micrographs accompanying the article, which shows particles which are round, structured and consistent in shape and size, and according to the presumably honest and monitored group of renowned researchers (specialists claiming affilitation with the finest institutions in biological research) are said HIV particles as spheres cosedimented with latex spheres, which HIV spheres when magnified to 86,000 times show envelope knobs, which knobs when counted against preincubation time permitted their measurement of the gp120 (surface protein) shedding rate. Meanwhile the original source is stated as Robert Gallo’s lab and it is labeled accordingly (in the text) as HIV-1HXB3 and as we have noted it above was inoculated into H9 cell culture and after 2 days centrifuged out from 1 liter of the infected culture and frozen, or incubated for 4-6 days with daily removal of given portion of the surface.

    The membranous and molecular debris seems clearly distinguishable in shape and size from the consistent dimensions of the particles. But heck, who are we to say whether it is valid or all a fraud. Whence your certainty, uncouth one? Are you a supporter of 9/11 conspiracy also? Please meet Marcel Girodian.

  25. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker Says:
    November 20th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
    It’s very frustrating that we don’t have an electron microscope picture of HIV, isn’t it, Chris? Perhaps you know of a source, do you? We could put it up for all to admire.

    Truthseeker Says:
    November 20th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
    Excellent, Chris, thanks. But that is the summary, and we are not in the library. Perhaps you could email a copy, could you, we could put the photos up.
    How odd that Etienne de Haarven, who taught electron microscopy of small items to others in Manhattan from his lab at Rockefeller in the sixties, didn’t know of these photographs when we chatted last year.

    Truthseeker Says:
    November 27th, 2006 at 3:20 am
    Slippery virus, this one. No camera at the scene of the crime.

    Truthseeker Says:
    November 28th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
    Are you suggesting that AIDS is caused by a virus that is not there? Surely not. Surely a world wide pandemic threatening millions cannot be caused by a virus that is not there. There must be some mistake. It must be hiding in some inaccessible part of the body. This is a cunning virus, after all, one of the most cunning viruses ever discovered.

    Some fairly recent quotes from TS, culled from the “chimps” thread.

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    Right, Dan. But the claim was made that there were lots of photographs, and so it proved, unless they are all faked up, which is a little unlikely. Still, one or two were in the beginning by Gallo as we recall. By some error the photograph included in one of his papers was not of what he claimed. But now there are too many to be a successful conspiracy, it seems clear. So it is a matter of whether the interpretation is correct or not. There was even one textbook drawing going around of a cell bursting because it was too full of HIV which was eating it up in a very unretroviral manner.

    Anyhow, until we can put up the photos – maybe we will be reduced to photographing the Xerox of the pdf – we cannot discuss whether they are valid and correctly interpreted. Let’s remember that Duesberg views all this as nonsensical and indeed it has never been published as a claim by the Perth pair in any peer reviewed journal, as far as we know.

    Also, this is determinedly not a conspiracy theory site. We use the literature to urge corrections to bad ideas which flow from the flaws and foibles of the human nature of scientists, and do not allege backroom deals to fool the public, though we do not rule them out as a part of modern science, perhaps as a self-organizing process fueled by unconscious drives which individuals never explicitly admit even to themselves. Any error is sincere, in our view. Wainberg and Moore shows signs of inner conflict in the vehemence of their expressions of paradigm loyalty and hatred of dissenters, but they presumably never see it themselves and do not spend sleepless nights tortured by the appalling misdirection of medication they are responsible for.

  27. Servo Says:

    What is the purified particulate reference standard that determines unequivocally whether or not someone is infected with a particular particle????

    Please answer.

  28. Dan Says:

    But the claim was made that there were lots of photographs, and so it proved, unless they are all faked up, which is a little unlikely. Still, one or two were in the beginning by Gallo as we recall. By some error the photograph included in one of his papers was not of what he claimed. But now there are too many to be a successful conspiracy, it seems clear. So it is a matter of whether the interpretation is correct or not.

    Hmm. Let’s just substitute papers/studies for photographs. This is the logic of the AIDS orthodoxy at work.

  29. Dan Says:

    TS,

    Servo’s sledgehammer style aside…he’s communicating quite clearly.

    Can you answer his questions without evoking “some unknown error” (your excuse for Gallo, above).

    IS THIS THE STANDARD FOR HIV TESTING? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING??

    ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT WHEN PEOPLE GET HIV TESTS THEY TAKE THE RESULT AND GO TO THIS ARTICLE AND REPEAT THE SAME EXPERIMENT AND FIND THE SAME PARTICLES AND FIND THE EXACT SAME PROTEINS AS THE REFERENCE PROTEINS IN THIS ARTICE (WHICH THERE ARE NONE OF, WHICH WAS NOT DONE, WHICH DON’T EXIST)???

    ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT EVERYONE WHO WAS EVER GIVEN A NON-SPECIFIC NONSTANDARDIZD TEST FOR NO PARTICULAR PARTICLE WAS REFERENCED AGAINST THIS STUDY DONE IN 1992??? IN 1992???

  30. MacDonald Says:

    We’re all HIV. Here’s some pictures of us:

    http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/114/FIG1

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS002.html

    http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS015.html

  31. MacDonald Says:

    Here we are purified:

    http://www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/gluk.jpg

    And here we are when grown up to double size:

    http://www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/bess.jpg

  32. Truthseeker Says:

    Servo, aka Semon (not in fact, an email from GS implores us later to state) any more capitalized Comments will be instantly erased by the software without reading whether they makes sense or not. Dan, likewise, kindly do not capitalize your efforts to understand what is being posted, or what is at issue, which seems to be very different in the post and blog host Comments than in yours and Servo’s, sorry to say.

    If you want to discuss whether HIV antibody tests actually indicate the presence of HIV particles, or whether the claimed HIV particles are really HIV particles or bits and pieces, kindly do so in normal conversational tone ie no Caps.

    If you want to discuss whether the paper shows that HIV is harmless, which is the point of the post, then make a specific point or objection on that front. Imagining that our post takes this article as proving the existence of HIV as a coherent entity and retrovirus is fantasy. We didn’t deal with that, though we tried to in Comments. We made the assumption that the presentation of the paper was valid. The proposal that it isn’t in that respect has been beaten to death and is the kind of thing that led the judge in Adelaide to reject the Perth research and views out of hand. This was predictable, in our opinion. If you wish to argue that it isn’t, as raging Servo seems to want to do, although preferably not in his puerile, alienating and self defeating style behind what he supposes is Web anonymity, which apparently releases his inner adolescent, and guarantees he will be instantly erased by the software for insulting the blog, the blog host and all reading this thread, then please do so, but preferably not in capitals.

    Regrettably however the blog host is so impressed by the ignorance and displaced logic of the latter discussion that he has given up hope of educating either of you, and waits instead to be educated by you or MacDonald (though not by his Mr Hyde counterpart). On what grounds do you deny the actual existence of HIV particles as viewed and micrographed in this and other studies? Put another way, what is your alternate version of reality, and how does it fit with the work described in this and other papers in labs around the world?

    What we will do for you is post the photos in the article, which we have taken with a digital camera from a Xerox of the PDF, lacking at the moment time to fetch them directly from the Web at the library.

    PS: OK we have done that. See end of post.

    Thanks for those pics, MacD, though the third one is of PCP, isn’t it? Note how the HIV particles in the second have no knobs visible – could this be significant? Where is this tutorial from – maybe it’s not HIV after all!

  33. MacDonald Says:

    Thanks for those pics, MacD, though the third one is of PCP, isn’t it? Note how the HIV particles in the second have no knobs visible – could this be significant? Where is this tutorial from – maybe it’s not HIV after all!

    Thank you beloved host for making one of the main points for me.

    The HIV picture(s) in the first and third link aren’t HIV, they are exosomes and as you rightly pointed out, pneumosystis Carinii.

    The one you did quibble is one of the first, best pictures of “genuine” HIV as presented by Mr. Houston.

    There’s loads of stuff in there, practically indistinguishable from one another, (the pneumocystis of course would be , but still serves to illustrate), especially to non-experts. That is why Lanka and Perth say the picture with something that sure looks more like “HIV” than the other stuff in the picture aint enough, as long as they do not also provide the original publications which describe how and what from the virus has been isolated, characterization, methods etc.

  34. Truthseeker Says:

    Sure, we were being facetious but meant it too. There is room for squabbling about what pictures show at this nano level. But we forgot to mention, the pictures uploaded for you on the post are pretty good – better than these by far. Let’s decide whether they are what they seem to be, knobs and all. Genuine? Misleading? Interpretable in some other way? Or irrefutable?

    We weren’t quibbling by the way. Just noting that there didn’t seem to be obvious knobs. The question is, why? In Moore’s photo they look like…toadstools (as pictured by us earlier, red and white knobs). In yours (Houston’s?) they look like cat’s eyes.

    We ask, from ignorance, what is going on? But this is far from saying, these are all different fictions. That would certainly be the story of the century. Too bad it doesn’t fit with so much science. But wait – isn’t that we can say about HIV as Deadly Virus?

    You got the ball, MacD, you have to run with it. What’s your alternative version of reality? Dan? Gene? You can’t just say the official version is wrong, without giving a valid alternative interpretation that fits the facts better, just as Duesberg has done. He showed that the Virus is Harmless fits the facts better than Fatal after Ten years Virus.

    You have to show likewise. Where’s the beef, Perthians?

    No capitals, please. This is a literate site.

  35. MacDonald Says:

    I very much doubt Servo is Gene. It is not is usual style. But perhaps you’ve recognised the IP address?

    The pictures are pretty good and to critique them or any other EMs, I would, as I just indicated, have to know more about them, and also be a lot more expert. There was only one of the expert witnesses in in Adelaide that dared talk about photos without qualifying remarks similar to mine. That is my point.

    These pictures are of clones as far as I understand. As Servo said, you cannot use them for reference. You have to use the original for reference. I could just as well clone the exosomes from the first picture I linked and call them ‘HIV’. Not many people would be able to tell the difference from the pictures.

    The Perth group have analyzed some of the established ‘originals’. I linked them in my next comment. As you can see the degree of purification is not very high + when you compare the two pictures, the Perth point out that the particles in the two EMs are of very different size.

    Retroviral particles are suppose to be of uniform shape and size.

  36. MacDonald Says:

    Not that cloning of infectious exosomes is thought to happen that often of course hehe…

  37. Nick Naylor Says:

    Well, at long last, an opening for my (whoever I am) next post on this vexing question of a “reference standard” or lack of one in the case of “HIV-1” which takes off from the Legally Blind thread and contains lots of technobabble but no ungentlemanly caps or insults.
    Unfortunately, given the exigencies of the moment and the necessity of correcting certain misrepresentations, a final technobabble to plain English edit is being omitted and for this I humbly apologize to the no-doubt frustrated readers of this thread.

    We summarize at this point for our much beleaguered readers THE FINE TECHNICAL POINTS that Judge Sulan’s opinion, so familiar in its reasoning to those anti-denialists we’ve been blogging with lo these many years. It is Dr Gallo’s contention, eaten up by the good judge, that he achieved that miraculous “purification” of one retrovirus, now called “HIV”, even while conceding how difficult this task would be for an endogenous retrovirus with the same functional genes, BTW, a point he chose not to emphasize in his testimony. Nor would it be a very good situation if these endogenous viruses were popping out of our genomes willy nilly, for they are indeed generators of diversity, which is why they are now a leading candidate for the genomic alterations that have sustained the evolution of vertebrates. Most of the time, they “know” their place. But what of this upstart “HIV” which we’re supposed to accept AS A DEADLY THREAT on the authority of “science”, the basic maneuver of Judge Sulan, obviously expressing matters in his opinion that he does not comprehend. This, of course, is why the law limits the gatekeeping function by precise rules that permit the trier of fact (judge or jury) to decide the matter, not to permit the judiciary to make rulings on the validity of a scientific theory.

    “The Untold Story of HUT 78”, the cell-line that was the supposed “source of HIV-1” is an interesting tale of the types of battles for credit which might be called typical in modern research practice. The story converges, across on those famous two papers, where the name “HUT 78” is never mentioned, but we do read about the many combinations or “co-cultivations” that produced the fractionated material where quite high concentrations of reverse transcriptase “activity”, from spiking the reaction kinetics with synthetic template, were documented.

    So “HIV”, which no scientist can explain why, with the same functional genes as the endogenous retrovirus, is deadly while they are harmless, in fact, difficult to catch in the “infectious act” as Gallo so eloquently stated to Judge Sulan. But here’s the rub: the same applies to “exogenous” retrovirus, in either case, the full DIMERIC genome needs to be assayed directly from the patient. Not fragments or bits from a subculture that supposedly has mass produced this complete genome, as they claim culturing is all that counts; unfortunately here, the “mass production” relies on synthetic templates and was completely disconnected from the reproduction of the agent’s genome, which is the intent of culturing a virus.

    The claim that first 2 HTLV’s are at great sequence variance from 3rd is countered by:

    Arya, Gallo, Hahn, Shaw, Popvic (Mika), Salahuddin (Zaki), Wong-Staal – all with the Laboratory of Tumour Cell Biology (LTCB), National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Homolgy of Genome of AIDS-Associated Virus with Genomes of Human T-Cell leukemia Viruses. Science 225, 31 August 1984, 927-930; paper dated May 1, 1984, accepted May 30, 1984.

    And so we see before we even get to the text that not only did Mika not work alone but that the source of HTLV III RNA was, according to reference 12 citing the very same “first paper” referred to previously (Sarngadharan, Read and Gallo also signed this paper, dated March 30, 1984 and accepted April 19. 1984), the “HT aneuploid” cell line where the supernatant-processing steps that produced the peak-fraction concentrate of reverse transcriptase activity (800,000 cpm), a putative measure of “mass production”, were described.

    And the HT 9, the “hero” of the Science, 1990 article may be the “clone” of “5 distinct cell lines” (pg 1506) somehow mixed together, given the failure of elementary “chain-of-custody” protocols in the Gallo lab 1980 – 1985. Here we can speculate on the “experimental conditions” of the “parent HT” (pg 498) that would be most conducive to isolating and SUSTAINING highly concentrated reverse transcriptase activity as well as possible original names of HUT 78, i.e., CTCL-2 (or 3) given in the earlier HTLV papers.

    Here I will substitute, for accuracy “RT concentrated supernatant” based on the material and methods/results sections for “virus particles”. The description picks up from the same source, “[RT concentrated supernatant] was purified from supernatant fluids of HT cells, clone 9” – here the reference is to the CELLS not a particular genomic clone – “infected with [RT concentrated supernatant](HTLV IIIB) by centrifugation through a sucrose density gradient at equilibrium (12). [RT concentrated supernatant] IIIB was originally obtained from pooled supernatants of short term lymphocyte cultures of AIDS patients.” [One of these cultures is, of course, equivalent to a short term culture of Montagnier’s patient that wound up “pooled” in his LAV culture]

    “Virus particles were also purified from normal peripheral blood lymphocytes newly infected by virus of a primary leukocyte culture of another AIDS patient (HTLV IIIZ) (11).” This “11” being of course what was referred to above as the “next paper.” Positive samples here were defined as “more than one of the following: reverse transcriptase activity in supernatant fluids; virus observed by electron microscopy; intracellular expression of virus related antigens detected by virus related antibodies from seropositive donors or with rabbit antiserum to HTLV III; or transmission of particles, detected by RT assay or by electron microscopic observation, to fresh human cord blood, bone marrow, or peripheral blood T lymphocytes.”

    The “particles” were in both cases the designated term for “HTLV III” positive supernatants and assumed to be virions within the processed culture fluids, indirectly assayed by the above criteria. The concentrated supernatant was “directly chromatographed on an oligo (dT) cellulose column. The resulting polyadenylate [poly(A)] containing RNA was used as template to synthesize (32)P-labeled complementary DNA (cDNA) in the presence of oligo (dT) primers. The size of the resultant cDNA ranged from .1 to 10 kb (not shown).”

    Here we note that the RNA is less than a complete dimeric genome, and the RT used was from avian myeloblastis virus. Wasn’t this “purification” supposed to be the “virus” processing it’s RNA template? Isn’t that what “particles” is supposed to refer to, catching “virions” in the act of replicating themselves. Alas, plenty of well-placed smoke and mirrors in these papers provided much room to “jump” to THAT pre-ordained conclusion.

    We continue, “when these labeled cDNA’s were hybridized to poly(A)-containing RNA from infected and uninfected H9 cells … only the infected H9 cells contained homologous sequences as evidenced by discrete RNA bands after Northern hybridization … detecting RNA species of about 9.0, 4.2 and 2.0 kb … hybridized to HTLV III (B & Z) cDNA … transcribed from poly(A)-selected virus associated RNA with the use of oligo(dT) as a primer and avian myeloblastosis virus RNA directed DNA polymerase …”

    These bands are similar in size to those corresponding to genomic size messenger RNA (mRNA) and spiced mRNA’s of env and pX sequences previously observed in cells infected with HTLV I, consistent with the anticipated relatedness of these viruses. Furthermore, viral mRNA bands of HTLV II infected cells were detected with an HTLV III cDNA probe and again the sizes of the mRNA were like those with HTLV I. Figure 2 describes the “relatedness of the genome of HTLV III B with the genomes of HTLV I and II …(whose) fragments … hybridized with HTLV IIIB cDNA”. This is the absolutely first diagram of “HIV-“1 and shows a px gene in addition to the canonical retroviral genes.

    They conclude, “the present data showing that certain nucleotide sequences of HTLV III are homologous to sequences of HTLV I and HTLV II support our proposal that the virus belongs in the HTLV family …A region spanning the gag and pol genes showed the greatest homology …Fragments corresponding to the env and pX sequences of HTLV I and HTLV II …hybridized weakly with HTLV IIIB cDNA …The ease of detection of these sequences varied with different preparations of cDNA, probably because of variable representations of the 3’ end of the virus genome.” Summarizing, HTLV III “specific sequences in cellular RNA from HTLV infected cells”, what you would expect to be transcribed from the proviral DNA in these stimulated cells: “poly(A) selected cellular RNA” produced proteins with “immunological cross reactivity between these antigens derived from the three subgroups.”

    So these bits of RNA that require outside assistance for their next round of replication into cDNAs are what we wind up with from our mass-produced virus? The next paper, in Nature (11/8/84, pg 166), describes cDNA being cloned into a lambda phage library. It shows three cDNA “recombinant clones” with the names BH 10, BH 8 and BH 5 with their “inserts” or contribution to the total of “9, 5.5 and 3.5 kb, respectively.” Here we pick up the adding of “concentrated supernatant” to “fresh, uninfected H9 cells at a multiplicity of 50 viral particles per cell (calculation procedure and assays to obtain this number not shown)* and cultures were collected after 4, 10, 15, 24 and 48 h … and assayed for its content of unintegrated viral DNA using HTLV III cDNA as a probe.” (This was the initial cDNA synthesized as described above.)

    In this paper, we find in Fig 2 our second representation of the HTLV III genome as indicated by the restriction fragments “two closely related HTLV III clones from unintegrated viral DNA. Three RECOMBINANT* clones (lambda BH 10, lambda BH 5 and lambda BH 8 were analyzed and their inserts … were mapped … They represent two genomic EQUIVALENTS* of HTLV III …” The figure shows BH 5 to be the 5’ 5.5 kb gag-pol region and BH 8 to be the remaining 3’ 4kb env-px region.

    There is also the necessary defining with HTLVs I and II, “the bands that are most highly conserved as stringency increases correspond to the gag/pol junction region of HTLV I (1.8 kb … fragment) and HTLV Ib (3.1 kb … fragment) and to the 3’ part of the pol region of HTLV II (2.1 kb … fragment) … Fragments corresponding to px of HTLV … are only faintly visible …” Of course later the distinctions were made in order to satisfy the criteria for an AIDS virus instead of a useless leukemia virus. Most important these transfers of “concentrated supernatants’ from culture to culture were used to justify an unprecedented-for-retroviruses claim of “cell-free transmission”.

    Nowhere to be found after countless manipulations of the H9 cell line: the complete genomic 70S RNA, a refrence standard.

  38. Servo Says:

    Thank YOU for answering MR. NICK TAYLOR. THere IS NO reference standard.

    This blog is now dead. The Coward HOST has deleted all my comments, but still the truth rises to the TOP. THERE is NO reference Standard and there is no such thing as “”””HIV”””” only garbage from cancer cell cutlrues.

  39. Dan Says:

    Sorry about the caps. I simply cut and paste what Servo wrote. I suppose I could have rewritten it, but I was lazy.

    On what grounds do you deny the actual existence of HIV particles as viewed and micrographed in this and other studies? Put another way, what is your alternate version of reality, and how does it fit with the work described in this and other papers in labs around the world?

    Sounds like the orthodoxy…
    note the use of the word deny, AND the need for us to disprove (something that hasn’t been proven). Wow! Amazing.

    This blog is quickly becoming irrelevant.

  40. Truthseeker Says:

    The coward Host warned the irrepressible Servo what would happen if he Capitalized his Comments, so it seems that he is as lazy as he is illiterate, and doesn’t read the thread he is yelling on, or cannot understand English, or cannot understand the science he screaming about. Probably all three, judging from the fact that he has so far made one point, the same one, in each superfluous post, and neither justified it nor joined in the points of others.

    Since we are watching the excellent Nadal give the supreme Federer very serious trouble in the Wimbledon final, we are tempted to say that it is rather like a naked troglodyte covered in woad and waving a club with a nail in it rising up in the stands and waving it in support of Nadal. Not much good as support for Nick The Bloodhound Naylor in his role as challenger here, really.

    Supporters like that one does not need, any more than Duesberg needs all the motley collection of brainless wonders who support his serious mainstream peer reviewed challenge to HIV with 9/11 type conspiracy theories about how it is all about a CIA conspiracy, or a non-existent virus. Wait! We take that back. We remain openminded, as always, with Bill Clinton, who told us that scientific beliefs were always open to question, by definition.

    For, on the other hand, we have the utmost respect for MacDonald in his urbane, witty mode, since behind his inability to state anything straightforwardly there peeps out what look like substantial points. Nick the Hound is also a dogged researcher in whose mass of detail far beyond our ken seems to hide similar points of possible consequence, though also hidden from the view of time-challenged blog hosts.

    But before reading it carefully it looks like exactly what we were asking for, a proper statement in which can be discerned the alternative account of reality that we find essential to take any 9/11 upside down flip of accepted truth seriously.

    We will read it very carefully to see if it holds up in this respect (as the 9/11 WTC brought down by internal explosions nuttiness does not) after we see how Nadal fares against Federer whom he has brought to an unprecedented fifth set, just as we hope that the Naylor Critique has brought reigning champion Duesberg to a fifth set, it may be, though currently we feel this is extremely unlikely, simply by judging by the apparent lack of skeletal logical bones in his conceptual Frankenstein.

    But we do not make any such judgement at the present time. It may be a Bionic Female Goddess for all we know, and we hope so. As we said before, we were waiting for a good alternative statement. Maybe this is it. Maybe this is the answer to Duesberg, one of the finest scientific minds extant, as is clear from his review papers. Maybe this is proof that the Virus doesn’t exist. That thousands of researchers all over the world are dealing with bits and pieces and just thinking they form a coherent entity.

    Maybe Nadal can beat Federer. He certainly seems to have an even chance right now, as the fifth set proceeds neck and neck.

  41. Dan Says:

    Maybe this is proof that the Virus doesn’t exist.

    You’ve got it upside-down, TS. First, you need to prove that it DOES exist. Much the same way the orthodoxy is asked to prove that what they call “HIV”, causes AIDS.

    That thousands of researchers all over the world are dealing with bits and pieces and just thinking they form a coherent entity.

    It’s the 50,000 French men can’t be wrong argument. Sounds a bit “Moore-ish”.

    I’m sorry, I seemed to have lost my way…is this “AIDStruth”?

    Sad to see this blog sink so low, so quickly.

  42. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, Nadal lost a game and the match in the fifth set, sad to say. But predictable, let’s admit.

    Similarly, with the above comments about how “low” the blog has sunk with its low interest in discussing with inarticulate and insulting posters the issue of whether the Perthians are right to challenge the very existence of the Virus. They reduce one’s interest to an even lower level, if that is possible.

    Yes it is always possible to complain that a challenge is treated disrespectfully if it is “denied” by the target, but there is also a genuine basis for rejecting crackpot and uninformed ideas, and there is a habit of people with such ideas to be blind to counterargument, disproof and rejection, and never give up. As previously noted, this is the American Inventor syndrome. We will post on it again, since we have an excellent example of an independent science scholar who has persevered through joblessness and homelessness, like Paul Erdos.

    Your posts have now reduced our interest in giving this idea any more rope to almost zero. One reason is that you misinterpret our replies. We were willing to give you a run for your money. Instead, you take everything as our arguing against your position. We are merely asking for reasoning, evidence and credible behavior. If thousands of scientists and lab workers believe in the reality of HIV and you can show them to be fantasising, bully for you. Go ahead.

    But we note all the signs of a bad idea and inadequate proponents:

    1. Immersion in a mass of details without ability to rise to see the big picture, or deal with the logic which must support an idea as the bones of a skeleton support the flesh of a living being.

    2. Tendency to insult people who are not impressed with the idea, as if they were not listening and this was the reason they are not impressed, instead of giving them what they need to validate the idea even when they request it.

    3. Tendency to interpret questioning as resistance and prejudice.

    4. Tendency to say that critics are prejudiced and compare themselves with Galileo etc fighting a Church.

    5. Tendency to say that the discussion is worthless because they did not win it.

    6. Tendency not to be able to explain the idea well.

    You’ve got it upside-down, TS. First, you need to prove that it DOES exist. Much the same way the orthodoxy is asked to prove that what they call “HIV”, causes AIDS.

    We don’t need to prove anything. The fact that you have to deal with is the existence of photographs of HIV. They exist in various forms. Are these photographs misinterpreted? If so how and why?

    Also various claims have been made in papers about how this particle has been detected, manipulated, mutates, has a consistent basic nature and characteristics, and if you say these are not what they seem to be, then you have to explain what really happened. What did Gallo really do, for example? What does PCR multiply? What infects culture? What is cloned?

    Do these things and account for the evidence or shut up. Otherwise you are cooking a red herring.

  43. Servo Says:

    We don’t need to prove anything. The fact that you have to deal with is the existence of photographs of HIV. They exist in various forms. Are these photographs misinterpreted? If so how and why?
    Gatekeeper ALERT! Gatekeeper ALERT!

    Hey dummy, you already admitted that there is no refrence standard for any particular particle for the tests, so what are you calling “hiv”? I have pictures of a hairy man in a forest. Is that bigfoot?

    ((Comment retained as Exhibit 1 of poster who is incapable of making any new point of any kind, even when he is challenged to do so, and is therefore counted as unfit for intelligent human interaction, and the post will be erased as soon as its usefulness as Exhibit 1 is over.- Ed.))

  44. Servo Says:

    Hey dummy, you already admitted that there is no refrence standard for any particular particle for the tests, so what are you calling “hiv”? I have pictures of a hairy man in a forest. Is that bigfoot?

    ((This dimwitted Comment kept as Exhibit 2 of “poster unable to recognize that the host he is babbling at made precisely that point”. Will be erased as soon as its usefulness as Exhibit is over.- Ed.))

  45. Servo Says:

    But its too late, you’re exposed. You play games, you strike poses, you act offended, but you are a coward. You cannot answer the QUESTION as to what is the purified PARTICULATE STANDARD for any test called an “hiv” test. You cannot answer why we should htink that any of your dirty pictures are any particular particle. You cannot show that anything in your dirty pictures have anything to do with anything that goes on in REAL PEOPLE ANYWHERE.

    This blog is over.

    ((This abysmally dim Comment is retained as Exhibit 3 of the Servo standard of scientific ratiocination – ie repetition, inability to understand responses, schoolboy jibes, complete disqualification from intelligent human discourse, and leading to the suspicion perhaps all his time wasting nonsense is an attempt by a Moore minion to disrupt proceedings by prolonging diversionary discussion of irrelevant topic on this thread, thus drawing attention away from the point of the post, which was that Moore confirms that the Virus is exceedingly uninfectious and crumbles away all by itself in short order.

    So whether it existed in the first place, which Servo appears to deny because he feels that the antibody tests lack specificity for HIV, when they are for antibodies to HIV, and there are exquisite probes for gp120 and other parts of the presumed whole – wakey,wakey Servo, we all know that the tests are a mess, that is not the point at all when challenging the identification of the Virus – is entirely irrelevant to the main point, which is to note that Moore is a Duesbergite.

    If we have any more of this diversion we shall post a summary rebuttal of the Perthian Problem and you can take it from there, since tiring of this amateur hour we have looked and found a very excellent paper on the topic.-Ed.))

  46. Nick Naylor Says:

    Servo and TS,

    Since both of you apparently find me credible can I suggest another option at this point?

    How about a cease fire pending a review of the substantive points in this thread?

    It will take my lazybones some time to digest all of the above, rewrite my contributions in plainer English and perhaps play the moderator, so I’m asking for some patience.

    “We shall post a summary rebuttal of the Perthian Problem”. This is a good idea, TS and will help refocus the discussion.

    And Servo, I understand your frustration, but maybe we can we all take a deep breath and access our innate creativity in order to advance this discussion.

    Gene

  47. Truthseeker Says:

    Hi Gene, nice post. Here for the benefit of all careful students of the precise details of the work done in this case with HIV-1HXB3 is a transcript from PDF of the paper up till the end of the first paragraph of the results Anyone who wants a copy of the PDF please email al@scienceguardian,com. We have fixed the software errors as best we can. Boldface is added by NAR.

    VIROLOGY 189, 695-7 14 (1992)

    Factors Underlying Spontaneous Inactivation and Susceptibility to Neutralization of Human lmmunodeficiency Virus

    SCOTT P. LAYNE,*n’ MICHAEL 1. MERGES,t MICAH DEMBO,* JOHN L. SPOUGE,+ SHAWN R. CONLEYJ
    JOHN P. MOORE,” JAWAHAR L. RAINA,I HERBERT RENZ,ll HANS R. GELDERBLOM,ll AND PETER L. NARAt

    *Biology and Biophysics Group, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 ( to whom reprint requests should be addressed at Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90024-l736. ); Virus Biology Section, Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland 2 170 1; *National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland 20894; !$Program Resources, Inc., Frederick, Maryland 2 170 1; “The Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, New York, New York 10016; American Bio-Technologies, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139; and The Robert Koch-Institute of the Federal Health Office, D- 1000 Berlin 65, Germany

    (Abstract)
    To determine the factors governing inactivation and neutralization, physical, chemical, and biological assays were
    performed on a molecular clone of human immunodeficiency type 1 (HIV-l HXB3)
    . This included quantitative electron
    microscopy, gpl20 and p24 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, reverse transcriptase assays, and quantitative
    infectivity assays. For freshly harvested stocks, the ratio of infectious to noninfectious viral particles ranged from l0^-4
    to 10^-7 ((1 in 10,000 to 1 in 10,000,000))
    in viral stocks containing 10^9 to 10^10 physical particles per milliliter. There were relatively few gpl20 knobs per HIV particle, mean approx = 10 when averaged over the total particle count. Each HIV particle contained a mean approx = 5 X 10^-l7 g of p24 and = 2 X l0^-16 g of RNA polymerase, corresponding to about 1200 and 80 molecules, respectively. The spontaneous shedding of gpl20 envelope proteins from virions was exponential, with a half-life approx = 30 hr. The loss of RNA polymerase activity in virions was also exponential, with a half-life approx = 40 hr. The physical breakup of virions and the dissolution of p24 core proteins were slow (half-life > 100 hr) compared to the gpl20 shedding and polymerase loss rates. The decay of HIV-1 infectivity was found to obey superimposed single-and multihit kinetics. At short preincubation times, the loss of infectivity correlated with spontaneous shedding of gp120 from virions. At longer times, an accelerating decay rate indicated that HIV requires a minimal number of gpl20 molecules for efficient infection of CD4+ cells. The blocking activity of recombinant soluble CD4 (sCD4) and phosphonoformate (foscarnet) varied with the number of gpl20 molecules and number of active RNA polymerase molecules per virion, respectively. These results demonstrate that the physical state of virions greatly influences infectivity and neutralization. The knowledge gained from these findings will improve the reliability of in vitro assays, enhance the study of wild-type strains, and facilitate the evaluation of potential HIV therapeutics and vaccines.

    INTRODUCTION

    Human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) are struc-
    turally and functionally labile. Four mechanisms are
    known to contribute to this property. These include the
    spontaneous dissociation of gpl20 proteins from the
    viral envelope (Gelderblom et al., 1985; Modrow et al.,
    1987), the physical breakdown of the lipid membrane
    covering viral particle (Nara et al., 1987a), the dissolu-
    tion of p24 core proteins encasing viral RNA (McDou-
    gal et al., 1985), and the spontaneous loss of RNA
    polymerase activity (Lori et al., 1988; Gaff, 1990). At
    present, there is little information on the kinetics of
    these chemical reactions, their rate constants, and

    how these reactions influence the activities of antiviral
    agents that attack extracellular or intracellular events in the viral life cycle (Looney et al., 1990; Layne and Dembo, 1992; Lu et al., 1992). Furthermore, there is scant knowledge of how widely these rates vary between laboratory strains and wild-type isolates under
    physiologic conditions. To start elucidating such is-
    sues, we undertook an extensive study of these basic
    reactions with HIV-1 HXB3, a molecularly cloned labora-
    tory strain (Shaw et al., 1984). HIV-1 HXB3 was chosen
    over others because it was easy to grow and store in
    large volumes. Also, recombinant gp120, ~24, and RNA polymerase proteins were available for the abso-
    lute calibration of chemical assays.

    The strategy of this study was to perform a variety of physical, chemical, and biological assays on the same viral stock, permitting correlations between the differ-
    ent types of data. Physical measurements of the actual
    number of particles and the number of gp120 knobs
    per particle were carried out by electron microscopy(EM). Quantitative determinations of gpl20 envelope and p24 core proteins were carried out by ELISA. Biochemical measurements of RNA polymerase activity of were performed by quantitative enzymatic assays. Biological measurements of viral titer, spontaneous viral inactivation, and the activities of antiviral agents were performed by quantitative infectivity assays with transformed cells and primary blood mononuclear cells. To determine basic kinetic parameters, such as half-lives and reaction orders, assays were repeated on viral stocks that were preincubated for various time intervals at 37”. To investigate how the perturbation of
    virus-cell binding was influenced by thermal treatment, sCD4 was used as a blocking agent at concentrations not facilitating spontaneous shedding of gpl20 (Moore et al., 1990; Hart et a/., 1991; Layne et
    a/., 1991; Dimitrov et al., 1992). To investigate how virion-associated reverse transcriptase activity influenced infectivity, trisodium phosphonoformate (foscarnet) was used as an inhibitor of viral RNA polymerase (Majumdar et al., 1978; oberg, 1983).

    Previous studies found that the blocking activity of
    sCD4 was inversely related to the density of CD4+ cell
    in viral infectivity assays (Layne et al., 1991). For “un-
    saturated” assays at low target cell densities, the bio-
    logical blocking activity of sCD4 corresponded to the
    gpl20-sCD4 association constant (Kassoc) from chemi-
    cal measurements. That is, the inhibition of infection
    was proportional to the formation of gpl20-sCD4
    complexes (Layne et al., 1990). For “saturated” infec-
    tivity assays at high target cell densities, on the other
    hand, the biological blocking activity of sCD4 fell far
    below the chemical Kassoc. This decline occurred be-
    cause the CD4 receptors on cell surfaces, which me-
    diated infection, competed successfully with the sCD4
    molecules in solution for viral-associated gpl20 mole-
    cules (Layne et a/., 1989, 1991). To permit direct com-
    parisons between chemical and biological measure-
    ments, the sCD4 blocking assays in this study were
    carried out at low target cell densities.

    Also, previous studies indicated that HIV requires a
    minimal number of free (unblocked) gpl20 molecules
    for efficient infection of CD4+ cells (Byrn et al., 1989;
    Layne et a/., 1990). When more than this minimal num-
    ber were present on a virion, the rate of infection was
    proportional to free gp120. When less than this num-
    ber were present, the rate of infection was significantly
    reduced. These studies did not, however, estimate the
    actual size of this threshold. Further goals of this study
    were to determine the minimal number of gpl2Os for
    HIV-l HXB3 by utilizing the relevant physical, chemical,
    and biological data and to see whether this number
    varied for primary and transformed human CD4+ cells.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Viral stocks

    H9 cell cultures (American Type Culture Collection,
    CRL 8543) were inoculated with HIV-1 HXB3 as previ-
    ously described (Layne et al., 1991). After 2 days, in-
    fected H9 cultures (1000 ml total volume) were clarified
    by centrifugation (20 degrees, 20 min, 10,000 g) and frozen
    (-70”) in 1O-ml aliquots. Also to monitor and optimize
    the titer of HIV-lHXB3 stocks, infected H9 cultures
    were incubated for periods of 4 to 6 days. At daily inter-
    vals, 5-ml aliquots of supernatant were removed, clari-
    fied by centrifugation, and frozen. Subsequently, these
    samples were assayed in parallel for infectious units.

    Quantitative infectivity assays

    Human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (H-
    PBMC) were isolated by centrifugation through Ficoll-
    Paque (Pharmacia). H-PBMC were washed twice [sus-
    pended in 50 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS)
    and centrifuged for 10 min at 300 g], red cells were
    disrupted with 25 ml of ammonium chloride lysis buffer
    (Biofluids, Inc.), and H-PBMC were again washed
    twice. H-PBMC were cultured (37”, 5%~ CO,) in media
    [RPMI 1640 and 100/o fetal bovine serum] containing 2
    kg ml-’ phytohemagglutinin. After 2 days, nonadher-
    ent cells were centrifuged and placed in fresh media
    containing 32 units ml-’ of IL-2. The next day, these
    stimulated H-PBMC were used as target cells.

    H-PBMC target cells, and CEM-SS target cells as
    previously described (Nara et a/., 1987b; Layne et al.,
    1990,199 l), were suspended in 50 nM DEAE-dextran
    for 30 min. After the DEAE-dextran was removed, a
    fixed number of target cells were added to 2-ml micro-
    centrifuge tubes containing media with different sCD4
    concentrations. To hold the inoculum-to-volume ratio
    constant, identical aliquots of HIV stock were added to
    each tube. Particular ratios (either 10 or 20%) were
    selected to give an m.o.i. less than 0.1, a total gpl20
    concentration less than 0.1 X Kassoc, and a satisfactory
    statistical count of infectious units. Tubes were placed
    on a roller apparatus during the 1 -hr infection period at
    37”. To remove cell-free virus and sCD4, infected tar-
    get cells were washed (1 min at 10,000 g, suspended
    in 1 ml of PBS and centrifuged) and suspended in fresh
    media. Indicator cell monolayers were made by adding

    3.5 x lo4 CEM-SS cells to microplate wells as previ-
    ously described (Layne et al., 1990, 1991). Infected
    cell monolayers were made by adding a small number
    (from 1250 to 5000) of H-PBMC or CEM-SS target cells
    to indicator cell monolayers. Eight replicate wells were
    plated per time point and sCD4 concentration. Syncy-
    tial forming units (SFU) representing the infection of
    individual target cells by cell free virus were counted 3
    to 5 days following plating (Nara eta/., 198713; Nara and
    Fischinger, 1988).

    Viral decay assays

    Frozen HIV-lHXB3 stock (250 ml) was thawed,
    pooled, and incubated with gentle mixing at 37”. At
    regular intervals (1 to 2 hr), quantitative infectivity as-
    says were performed with H-PBMC and CEM-SS target
    cells (1.4 X 1 O4 cells ml^-1, 1.8-ml reaction volumes,
    and 10% inoculum-to-volume ratio) in media contain-
    ing 0 and 0.5 nM sCD4. Also at regular intervals (4 or
    12 hr), a “prespin” sample of viral stock was frozen
    (-70”) for subsequent assays. At the same time, 8-ml
    aliquots of stock were ultracentrifuged (20”, 40 min,
    155,000 g) and the resulting “postspin supernatants”
    were frozen for subsequent assays. After all remaining
    supernatant was swabbed from the ultracentrifuge
    tubes, viral “pellets” were suspended in fresh media
    and frozen for subsequent assays.

    gpl20 ELBA

    Frozen samples from viral decay assays were
    thawed and lysed with Nonidet P40 (NP40), final con-
    centration 0.5%. Immulon-II microplate wells (Dyna-
    tech) were coated with D7324 capture antibody (Aalto
    Bioreagents), washed, and blocked as previously de-
    scribed (Moore and Jarrett, 1988; Moore et al., 1989).
    Next, 100 yl of each sample was added to six replicate
    wells and incubated for 3 hr at room temperature. Un-
    bound protein was removed by washing twice with 200
    ~1 of solution containing 144 mM NaCl and 25 mM Tris
    (pH 7.6). Bound gp120 was detected with a pool of
    HIV-l-positive human serum, an alkaline-phospha-
    tase-conjugated antibody to human IgG (SeraLab), and
    an AMPAK ELISA (Novo Nordisk) amplification system
    (Moore eta/., 1990). Reactions were stopped with 50 /II
    of 0.5 M HCI and optical densities at 492 nm were
    measured. Protein concentrations were determined
    against recombinant HIV-l IIIB gpl20 derived from
    CHO cells (Celltech). The purity (>95%) and concen-
    tration of the recombinant protein were measured by
    SDS electrophoresis and amino acid analysis, respec-
    tively (data not shown). The gpl20 standards were in-
    cluded on all microplates (three replicates in serial
    threefold dilutions).

    p24 ELBA

    Frozen samples from decay assays were thawed
    and lysed with Triton X-l 00, final concentration 0.5%.
    One hundred microliters of each sample was added to
    four replicate wells in commercial microstrips (NEK-
    060A, DuPont). All subsequent steps were performed
    in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
    The optical density (492 nm) of developed wells was
    determined by an automated plate reader (Vmax Ki-
    netics, Molecular Devices). Protein concentrations
    were determined against recombinant HIV-l IIIB p24
    supplied with the ELISA kits. p24 standards were included on all microplates (three replicates in serial two-
    fold dilutions).

    Quantitative RNA polymerase activity assays

    Frozen samples from decay assays were thawed
    and lysed with Triton X-l 00, final concentration 0.5%.
    Six microliters of each sample was added to four repli-
    cate wells containing 20 ~1 of 50 mMTris (pH 7.6), 100
    mM NaCI, 6 mM MgCI/2, 10 mM dithiothreitol, 4 pg
    ml^-1 oligo(dT)/12-18, 40 pg ml-^1 poly(A), 0.12 mCi ml^-1
    [3H]TTP, and 0.25% NP40 (Baltimore and Smoler,
    1971; Goodman and Spiegelman, 1971). The micro-
    plates were then incubated for 1 hr at 37”. Next, 150 ~1
    of stop solution containing 40 mM sodium pyrophos-
    phate and 15 mM NaCl was added. Radioactive prod-
    ucts were then precipitated with 20 ~1 of 60% trichloro-
    acetic acid (TCA) on ice for 30 min. The 196 PI in each
    well was transferred (Micro Cell Harvester, Skatron) to
    0.45~pm filter papers with 5.0 ml of wash solution con-
    taining 6% TCA and 40 mM sodium pyrophosphate.
    Filter papers were dried, placed in scintillation fluid,
    and counted for beta activity (LKB Betaplate, Model
    1205). Viral RNA polymerase activities were quantified
    against recombinant HIV-l IllB polymerase derived
    from Escherichia co/i (~661~51 heterodimer, American
    Bio-Technologies). The purity (>95%) and concentra-
    tion of the recombinant protein were measured by SDS
    electrophoresis and amino acid analysis, respectively
    (data not shown). Recombinant standards were in-
    cluded on all microplates (four replicates in serial two-
    fold dilutions). For 2.0 X lo-’ and 1.6 X lo-” g of
    recombinant protein, beta counts were 4.8 X 1 O5 and 3
    X 1 03, respectively. The total counts were proportional
    to the protein weight and background counts were ap-
    proximately 1 X 103.

    RNA polymerase inhibition assays

    Trisodium phosphonoformate (foscarnet) was used
    as a noncompetitive enzymatic .inhibitor of RNA poly-
    merase (Majumdar eta/., 1978; Oberg, 1983). This an-
    tiviral agent was selected over others because the par-
    ent compound was active, readily penetrated cells,
    and was nontoxic at concentrations of less than 500
    PLM (Helgstrand et al., 1978; Sandstrom et a/., 1985).
    Prespin samples with preincubatron times of 0, 8, 16,
    and 24 hr were thawed. Quantitative infectivity assays
    were carried out on these four samples with 0, 25, 50,
    and 100 PLM phosphonoformate in the media. To en-
    sure that phosphonoformate was in equilibrium in
    these assays, it was added to the target cells 4 hr prior
    to adding the viral inoculum. After a l-hr infection pe-
    riod, CEM-SS target cells (5 x 1 O4 ml^-1) were washed,
    suspended in media, and added to indicator cell mono-
    layers. For all steps, the media contained the same
    concentration of phosphonoformate. To evaluate the
    side effects of phosphonoformate on syncytia forma-
    tion, three tubes without phosphonoformate in the me-
    dia were inoculated with prespin samples without
    preincubation. Subsequently, the indicator cell mono-
    layers contained 25, 50, and 100 PLIVI phosphonofor-
    mate.

    Quantitative electron microscopy

    At regular intervals (4 or 12 hr) during the viral decay
    assays, 9.9-ml aliquots of viral stock were thoroughly
    mixed with 0.1 ml of polystyrene spheres (1490 + 40 A
    diam from Duke Scientific or 2500 -t 130 A diam from
    Polysciences), resulting in 1 X 10’ spheres ml^-1. An
    8-ml aliquot of this mixture was ultracentrifuged (20”,
    40 min, 155,000 g), the supernatant was decanted,
    and the pellet was fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde.
    Next, the glutaraldehyde-fixed pellets from the decay
    assays (containing cosedimented beads and virus par-
    ticles) were embedded in Epon either in the tips of the
    centrifuge tubes (in situ) or after being divided into
    pieces using standard procedures (Gelderblom et al.,
    1987). For contrast enhancement, in particular to im-
    prove the detectability of the viral glycoprotein knobs in
    the electron micrographs, the specimens were post-
    fixed (60 min, 4’) with osmium tetroxide, treated (30
    min, 4”) with 0.1% tannic acid (No. 1764, Mal-
    linckrodt), and stained en bloc with 2% uranyl acetate
    (90 min, 4”). Sections of about 50-nm thickness were
    mounted on 300-mesh copper grids, poststained with
    lead citrate (Venable and Coggeshall, 1965) and evalu-
    ated in Zeiss electron microscopes EM902 or EM 10.
    From pellets embedded in situ, ultrathin sections were
    cut at different depths of the pellet to evaluate the dis-
    tribution of beads and virus particles. From the pellets
    divided before embedding, two to three individual
    pieces were similarly evaluated. From one particular
    depth of the in situ or one piece of the divided pellets,
    10 to 15 randomly selected regions were photo-
    graphed at 12,000X and 30,000X magnification,
    strictly avoiding the overlap of consecutive sections.
    For each micrograph, the total numbers of virus parti-
    cles, polystyrene spheres, and gpl20 knobs per virus
    particle were counted. To avoid bias, the pellets were
    identified by a code, which was broken only after the
    evaluation of micrographs. For subsequent statistical
    analyses of the data, only micrographs with more than
    five spheres and five virus particles were used.

    Statistical analysis of data

    “Normalized SFU” was defined as the mean number
    of SFU without sCD4 in the media divided by the mean
    number of SFU with sCD4 in the media (Layne et al.,
    1989). To facilitate the analysis of sCD4 blocking, the
    slope of a normalized SFU versus sCD4 concentration
    plot, [(normalized SFU) -l] f (sCD4 concentration),
    was defined as the “biological blocking activity” of
    sCD4 (Layne et a/., 1991). Biological blocking activities
    have units of inverse molar (AK’), which permits com-
    parison to gpl20-sCD4 association constants derived
    from chemical measurements (Layne et al., 1990). Bio-
    logical blocking activities were calculated by minimiz-
    ing f(a, b) = C([yi -(axi + b)] + ai}*, which gave a
    weighted least-squares fit to the data. yi was the mean
    value of l/SFU at the ith sCD4 concentration, ai was
    the standard deviation of l/SFU, and x/i was the sCD4
    concentration at the ith data point. For normalized SFU
    plots, the weighted least-squares fit gave biological
    blocking activities (slopes) of a/b. Half-lives and dou-
    bling times were calculated by minimizing f(a, b). In this
    case, yi was the mean value of log,,(SFU) at the ith
    preincubation time, ui was the standard deviation of
    log,,(SFU), and xi was the preincubation time at the ith
    data point. For log-linear plots, the weighted least-
    squares fit gave a half-life (or doubling time) and inter-
    cept of a and b, respectively. Unweighted least-
    squares fits were obtained by setting ai = 1. The 95
    and 68% confidence limits were calculated by a stan-
    dard bootstrap algorithm (Efron and Tibshirani, 1991).

    RESULTS

    Replication characteristics of HIV-l HXB3

    Figure 1 shows the exponential replication of in-
    fectious HIV-l HXB3 from two separate H9 cultures.
    The cultures were prepared with the same continuous
    H9 cell line, inoculated with the same frozen viral stock
    and m.o.i., and rapidly harvested by the same method
    (Layne et a/., 1991). For the first 24 hr, the first culture
    (Cl) produced new virus at a rapid exponential rate
    (doubling time w 2 hr). From 24 to 72 hr, however, the
    replication rate of this culture decreased and after 72
    hr, the viral titer declined. For the first 96 hr, the second
    culture (0) produced new virus at a somewhat slower
    exponential rate (doubling time = 7 hr). For this cul-
    ture, samples were not taken for growth times longer
    than 96 hr. Thus, the inevitable effects of target cell
    cytolysis and depletion on viral expression were not
    observed. These two sets of data were selected for
    presentation because they bracketed typical doubling
    times and durations of exponential growth. Since H9
    cultures always produced HIV-1 HXB3 exponentially for
    the first 48 hr in these studies (data not shown), all viral
    stocks used in this study were harvested after 48 hr of
    viral replication.

    and so on.

    Received March 5, 7992; accepted May 27, 1992 p 695
    0042.6822/92 $5.00
    Copyrght 1992 by Academic Press, Inc.

  48. Michael Says:

    The following letter to the editor was sent to the Globe Mail.

    Regarding your Web-exclusive comment:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070704.wcommentt0704/BNStory/National/home

    AIDS and the dangers of denial
    By MARK WAINBERG AND JOHN MOORE

    Dear Editor,

    How dare you allow these two pharma paid goons to declare that free speech should be abolished, let alone allow them to do this on the very day America celebrates “INDEPENDENCE DAY”, The Fourth of July!

    This is a day we Americans celebrate our Freedom including the Right to Free Speech!

    Especially if I am an HIV positive but even if I am not, then I have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to hear ALL SIDES OF AN ISSUE before making personal health decisions such as taking proven deadly toxic AIDS medications, such as promoted by these two! Wainberg owns patents on very toxic AIDS drugs that have caused death by liver failure, as well as maiming by lipodystrophy and neuropathy in thousands of people. Moore is the recipient of a half million dollar grant from another maker of AIDS drugs that are just as toxic as Wainbergs.

    I have the right to know if there are scientists that disagree that HIV causes AIDS. I have a right to know the full hazards of the medications these people peddle.

    How dare the Globe/Mail allow people such as this who would politic to take away my right to be informed on all sides of an issue!

    Shame on you at the Globe Mail for allowing this, and heaps of shame on the mainstream scientists such as these two, that wish to censor information that is important, and may well even save my own life.

  49. Truthseeker Says:

    Superb letter, Michael. We have added boldface to mark its merit, since there ain’t no green border available on this blog software yet.

    Freedom is for science what the air is for an animal. – Henri Poincare, Dernieres Pensees

  50. yello Says:

    My gracious apologies, I’ve been trying to post references showing that p24 proteins are found in many people without HIV/AIDS over at aetiology.So far, all the pubmed refs have been bounced.Would you folks mind if I posted them here, even though it’s off-topic?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&itool=abstractplus&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=2501931

    http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102223351.html

    http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/11/3440

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v11/n7/full/5200995a.html

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=170491

    http://www.lymphomation.org/story-graham.htm

    http://aras.ab.ca/test-discordance.html

    And my absolute favourite….

    http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/5/1659

    In which……..

    Division of AIDS, Center for Immunology and Pathology, National Institute of Health, Seoul,1 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, Pusan, Republic of Korea2

    Received 22 January 2007/ Accepted 26 February 2007

    Specific antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), usually used for diagnosis, almost invariably become detectable within 3 months of exposure. We report on a patient whose HIV infection was identified early by a combined antigen/antibody test, but seroconversion did not occur for 7 months, until the implementation of antiretroviral therapy.

    You literally can’t make this stuff up! 😀

    “But none of the few examples proves p24 cross-reactivity is widespread. And please remember the coroner’s people did control slides to rule out the remote possibility in the EJ situation.”

    I’m sure the controls used were impeccable;)

    “Unfortunately, EJ’s health problems were ignored and she was neglected so long she died and so responsible doctor’s won’t ever be able to confirm or throw out her diagnosis by the methods reported in your Brazilian conference abstract. Her symptoms and how the CDC diagnosis criteria was met with the tissue antigen sample really scream “HIV and AIDS”, (not)

    *cough*massively*elevated*cough* T-cell counts*Lack of PCP defined pneumonia*hack*spits*.

    “ALL of this is just a weird coincidence set with NOTHING to do with the mother’s HIV”.

    Which has been disputed plenty of times….

    http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780967415307&itm=7

    “Martha Howard, MD, A reviewer, 09/08/2005
    Christine Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE
    I can’t believe I am the first to point this out. Hasn’t anyone wondered why Christine Maggiore refuses to submit to the National Institutes of Health or the Center for Disease Conrol for HIV testing (using ELISA, Western Blot, PCR)? She was the victim of false positive ELISA testing over a decade ago (not that unusual) and, worse, a physician who disclosed her test results without the mandatory Western Blot confirmation. Subsequently learning of her HIV NEGATIVE status, Christine has taken the conspiracy theory ball and run, run, run away with it. Believe me friends, Maggiore is HIV NEGATIVE – which explains consistent claims that she and her children are ‘ridiculously healthy’ – most young HIV negative women are ridiculously healthy too. She is a charlatan who has desperately harmed the lives of HIV positive people by outright lies. They believed in her – by example. If she were healthy after so many years of HIV infection, then HIV=AIDS was a lie (a wonderful fantasy, I know). No lie folks. If left untreated, HIV is lethal. For an HIV NEGATIVE woman such as Christine Maggiore to claim that HIV is harmless certainly lacks conviction!”

    There used be quite a few other remarks along a similiar vein on Amazon and several anti-dissident sites.They’re all mostly wiped now, very curious.
    Then there’s the fact both her husband who she boinks with no latex and her breast-fed son are HIV negative despite repeated testing(darn).Christine herself has tested positive,negative and indeterminate.

    “People like y’llo and Maggiore deny the evidence forever because the truth they let a little girl die because of their own nutty AIDS denial hurts too much.”

    Stop you’re breaking me heart(sniff).I never realized we’re such evil devious monsters for questioning the parroted claptrap.

    BTW, I feel extreme pity for the racist neo-nazis using Prof. Culshaw’s work, her fury against bigotry in all it’s form knows no bounds, as I’m sure certain fellow members of the dissident community have felt.She may not be able to stop them, but she will in no uncertain terms rip them a new one.

    (fraudulent cash)

    Why wouldn’t a college kid want the moola.It’s easy cash!
    And your nemesis finally gets her comeuppance, with her own money no less.Think of it, she’ll finally have to recognize she has no one to blame for her daughter’s death but herself.

    Sorry for the late posting, the software bounced me ’round a lot 😉

    No Mr. Noble, I haven’t gotten ’round to your variable sized retroviruses yet.

  51. anonymous Says:

    Dear Truthseeker,

    Assuming for the moment that we agree that HIV is a real retroviral particle that can be visualized on electron micrographs with the cone core and surface knobs, it can be tagged with gold labeled antibodies, etc, and that it can be sequenced and cloned, the question remains, is it a benign passenger virus as Duesberg has always maintained, or is there any evidence that it produces cell lysis and cytopathology in the host cell?

    To address this question, this study by Orenstein is usually held up by AIDS Inc political activists as evidence that HIV IS NOT a benign passenger virus and is cytopathic to lymphocytes in the gut lymphoid tissue. What is your reply to this?

    Orenstein claims;” This is the first direct visual proof that cytolysis of HIV-infected lymphocytes occurs in vivo in lymphoid tissue and that the debris can be phagocytized by macrophages. It is also the first direct evidence that HIV-positive lymphocytes fuse in vivo to form small multinucleated cells.”

    Here is the LINK to the article (full text article).

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JID/journal/issues/v182n1/000027/000027.html

    J Infect Dis. 2000 Jul;182(1):338-42. Epub 2000 Jun 30.

    In vivo cytolysis and fusion of human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected lymphocytes in lymphoid tissue.

    Orenstein JM. Department of Pathology, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20037, USA. patjmo@gwumc.edu.

    Lymphoid tissue was examined to see whether in vivo cytopathic effects of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on lymphocytes could be detected. Transmission electron microscopy of mechanical suspensions prepared from lymph nodes showed both replication and phagocytosis of HIV particles by macrophages. Phagosomes contained cellular debris and virions, some of which were undergoing digestion. Neutrophils also contained HIV particles intermixed with cellular debris in phagosomes. Immunohistochemistry revealed whole Gag p24-positive lymphocytes and p24-positive cellular debris within the cytoplasm of paracortical macrophages. Lysing p24-positive lymphocytes were also seen. In the paracortex, p24-positive multinucleated lymphocytes with up to 5 nuclei were seen. In situ hybridization for HIV RNA in combination with immunohistochemistry for HAM56, a macrophage-specific marker, revealed colabeled cells. Thus, HIV-positive lymphocytes undergo lysis in lymphoid tissue. The cellular debris is phagocytized by macrophages, which themselves can replicate HIV. HIV-positive lymphocytes fuse in lymph nodes to form multinucleated cells.

    PMID: 10882620 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

    Your comment on this please?

    Regards from, anonymous

  52. Chitachitamuchita Says:

    Dear anonymous,

    If the concentration of HIV particles in the human body is so low that it is not biologically relevant , it does not matter if HIV is cytopathic to lymphocytes or not.

    Chitachitamuchita

  53. anonymous Says:

    Dear Chitachitamuchita,

    “If the concentration of HIV particles in the human body is so low that it is not biologically relevant , it does not matter if HIV is cytopathic to lymphocytes or not.”

    By saying “human body”, you mean the blood stream. However, the lymphoid tissue of the GI tract is a filtering resevoir, and the amount of HIV present here may not be measureable in the blood stream.

    Does your statment mean you agree with the Orenstein paper, that HIV is cytopathic to lymphocytes in lymphoid tissue of the GI tract, or not?

    anonymous

  54. Truthseeker Says:

    Does your statment mean you agree with the Orenstein paper, that HIV is cytopathic to lymphocytes in lymphoid tissue of the GI tract, or not?

    Anonymous, this is a familiar point, raised five years before the Orenstein paper you quote. When the virus is away from antibodies it can multiply, as it does in cell culture, or in the lymphoid tissue in the gut as they mention here, and you can get a cell fusing effect. The retrovirus can form giant, multinucleated cells, where the cells are packed together, and under these special circumstances something can cause cell depletion or death. Duesberg points out in his book that many retroviruses will do this, including endogenous ones.

    This phenomenon does not affect T cell levels in the blood because antibodies in the blood will neutralize the HIV and prevent fusing by blocking the gp120 surface spikes connecting with the T cells. Fusion can happen only in places where the antibodies cannot reach, such as cell culture in the lab, or the mucosal walls of the intestine, where the T cells are closely packed together. The giant cells can form on the mucosal surface tissue.

    It is not clear what then causes the depletion of the cells under these circumstances. There is evidence that the cytotoxic T cells are going after the the infected helper T cells when there is no antibody available, and there is cell trafficking in the migration of cells to other sites, which does not involve killing.

    But it doesn’t matter, and has no bearing on the theory that HIV kills T cells, because the cells are all rapidly replenished anyway, as chief HIV∫AIDS theorist Zvi Grossman has noted. None of this affects the level of T cells in the blood. Fauci, in his own review three years after this paper, points out the fusagenic effect is rarely seen in vivo in patients, there being only one case on record.

    All this is standard NIH endorsed stuff, not dissent.

  55. anonymous99 Says:

    Dear Truthseeker,

    Thanks for the reply.

    Could you please post a few references where this information originates?

    Thanks in advance

    anonymous99

  56. MartinDKessler Says:

    Rebecca Culshaw commented in her book “Science Sold Out” in chapter two that references more than two or three years old are “out of date”. The reference anonymous99 gave was seven years old! Apparently, since AIDS “science” is supposedly revised (re-invented?) every two to three years, the Orenstein paper is “out of date”. The AIDS establishment keeps the target moving to quell dissent. It’s amazing that so many have invested so much time in a virtually non-existent biological entity that does so little.

  57. hhbauer Says:

    The electron micrograph in the Layne et al. paper is of particles prepared from H9 cell cultures inoculated with a MOLECULARLY CLONED HIV-1…. I don’t think this is a substantive contradiction of the Perth Group (and others’) statements that electron micrographs of PURE HIV have never been published–surely those latter statements carry the understood implication of pure HIV OBTAINED FROM AIDS PATIENTS

  58. Truthseeker Says:

    Henry, why not make what you are saying absolutely clear, since it is definitely one escape hatch that Perthians are still trying to scramble through. But we are not sure how it works. Is the idea that a cloned HIV might yield particles of a uniform type which can be photographed, but that this may be misleading, since they are not the same HIV particles as might be found in patients? If so, how do they differ, or might they differ?

    Or if this is the charge, then is it claiming that HIV particles have never been taken from patient blood and properly and entirely separated out, or is it saying that the cloned HIV is an artificial construct that wouldn’t occur in Nature, or what?

    We promised to post another post on this topic and will do so with the strong anti-Perth paper we found, but we are busy writing up something else and we are not entirely au fait with this point about clones versus blood HIV. How is a newcomer meant to take it? Any other commentators clarifying this point are very welcome. Why isn’t a picture of cloned HIV good enough to say There it is, folks. The Virus that is sweeping the world, right before your eyes.

  59. Robert Houston Says:

    The 1992 paper by Layne et al., which Truthseeker kindly reproduced in part above, gave the citation for the origin and characteristics (reference standard) of the moleclular clone of HIV (HIV-1HXB3) that was was used in their study. The information was provided by Robert Gallo’s group in Science, Dec. 7, 1984 (G. M. Shaw et al. Molecular characterization of HTLV-III in AIDS. Science 226:1165-1171, 1984), and the HIV strain itself was obtained by Layne et al. from Gallo’s lab at NIH. According to Shaw’s abstract, it was cloned using “cell lines and fresh tissues from patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex…”

    It’s noteworthy that in table 1 of the Shaw paper, the Gallo group revealed that only 6 of 39 AIDS patients, or 15%, showed any evidence of HIV (then termed HTLV-III). The figure for patients with AIDS-related complex was 3 of 26, or 12%.

    In his July 8th comment above, Nick Naylor spent two pages summarizing an earlier Gallo paper from Aug. 31, 1984, which was not directly relevant to the molecular clone of HIV that was used in the Layne study. Mr. Naylor neglected to mention the point of his synopsis, nor how he would critique the Gallo research. Perhaps one day he may deign to reveal the key points and wisdom of his analysis.

  60. MacDonald Says:

    Perhaps one day he may deign to reveal the key points and wisdom of his analysis.

    We can only pray and hope, Mr. Houston, pray and hope. But to be fair to Mr. Naylor, I don’t think we can blame him for not addressing the Layne et al. molecular clone and its immediate ancestor, since he never claimed he was.

    The above is part 3-4 of a continuing series posted by Mr. Naylor in this friendly forum. If memory serves correct the stated point of the several page long “synopsis” is precisely that, to go through the initial Gallo paper with a fine-toothed comb and test if the claims made are warranted.

    Unfortunately a certain kind of incomprehension, frequently expressed in our gracious host cell, seems to be at least as infectious as the HIV molecular clone, because in his latest instalment, Mr. Naylor does make a number of unwontedly clear and coherent points that appear pretty ‘key’ to this reader. For instance this from ‘page one’:

    But here’s the rub: the same applies to “exogenous” retrovirus, in either case, the full DIMERIC genome needs to be assayed directly from the patient. Not fragments or bits from a subculture that supposedly has mass produced this complete genome, as they claim culturing is all that counts; unfortunately here, the “mass production” relies on synthetic templates and was completely disconnected from the reproduction of the agent’s genome, which is the intent of culturing a virus.

    Backed up by ,

    the source of HTLV III RNA was, according to reference 12 citing the very same “first paper” referred to previously (Sarngadharan, Read and Gallo also signed this paper, dated March 30, 1984 and accepted April 19. 1984), the “HT aneuploid” cell line where the supernatant-processing steps that produced the peak-fraction concentrate of reverse transcriptase activity (800,000 cpm), a putative measure of “mass production”, were described.

    Then this:

    The “particles” were in both cases the designated term for “HTLV III” positive supernatants and assumed to be virions within the processed culture fluids, indirectly assayed by the above criteria

    To condense even further:

    1. A mix of cultures, co-cultures, sub-cultures + synthetic templates, disconnected from the agent’s genome instead of assays directly from the patient.

    2. RT activity as proof of viral mass production

    3. The presence of virions assumed by other “indirect assays”

    A lucid, progressive, bold, easy to check and critique review that spells out its own conclusions.

  61. MacDonald Says:

    Correction:

    initial Gallo papers, not “paper”.

  62. Robert Houston Says:

    Hopefully, this link will work for the study on HIV cloning by G. M. Shaw et al. in Science, Dec. 7, 1984, which was mentioned in my previous comment.

    Mr. MacDonald has our thanks for his attempted clarification of Nick Naylor’s lengthy comment. MacD provides three quotes from Mr. Naylor as helping to elucidate the August 1984 Gallo article that Mr. Naylor was summarizing. However, the first quote preceded mention of the article and wasn’t even commenting on it, and the other two quotes seem to be statements summarizing parts of the Gallo article.

  63. MacDonald Says:

    It was my impression that what I presented in my first quote was Mr. Naylor’s introduction to his examination of the Gallo paper containing a summary of the key issues he wished the reader to keep in mind while working through the minutiae following immediately below. Mr. Naylor tells us what he thinks is the standard of proof of discovery and/or mass production of a novel, exogenous retrovirus before proceeding to pick out some critical parts of the paper to see if those standards have been met.

    In line with what I’ve presumed is the intro, Mr. Naylor concludes by saying that not even what he considers a minimum, or lower level, standard of proof has been met:

    Nowhere to be found after countless manipulations of the H9 cell line: the complete genomic 70S RNA, a reference standard

    I admit that to the layman not familiar with this issue, or to those who are not familiar with Mr. Naylor’s style and views, this is not easy to follow. Nevertheless there is both strong and direct evidence of the presence of composition and coherence in Mr. Naylor’s latest effort.

  64. Nick Naylor Says:

    Once again, a deeply felt gratitude for MacDonald and his functioning brain.

    I see more demands for plain English and another paper with co-author Moore has been presented as a refutation? of something I wrote?

    Obviously, the HIV clones exist, and can be manipulated experimentally and very precisely as these competent experimentalists no doubt did.

    So what is the point of this Layne et al Virology paper in terms of the matters at hand: the missing viral titers in vivo as originally stated by Duesberg, spiking the kinetics of reverse transcription with a synthetic template-primer by Gallo et al and misrepresenting the result as viral mass production?

    There is no such infectious multiplier as has been described by the HIV Establishment; it’s known as “inventing the AIDS virus.”

    Gene

  65. Robert Houston Says:

    “Obviously, the HIV clones exist, and can be manipulated experimentally and very precisely…”

    Will wonders never cease? At least one Perth sympathiser has retained sufficient common sense to acknowledge what’s obvious. However, Nick Naylor goes on to suggest that the “Layne et al Virology paper”, which Truthseeker had cited, was “misrepresenting the result as viral mass production.” But surely in the laboratory mass production was achieved. Or are “viral stocks containing 10^9 to 10^10 [1 billion to 10 billion] physical particles per milliliter” too little to qualify?

    That 1992 paper by Layne and colleagues, including a certain John P. Moore, was mentioned by Truthseeker in an addendum to his post not as a refutation of anything Mr. Naylor wrote, but rather as an indication of the astounding hypocrisy of Dr. Moore himself. For the Layne/Moore study found that, after just two days, “freshly harvested stocks” of the HIV clone became virtually non-infectious and underwent “spontaneous inactivation.”

    So what ticked off the fury of some commentators on this thread? They disregarded the central subject of censorship and thought control, which Moore and Wainberg were advocating in regard to HIV/AIDS and which Truthseeker was critiquing. Instead, the comentators seized upon 9 words in the addendum concerning the 1992 Layne/Moore paper. Truthseeker added, “Nice electron micrographs of the Virus, too, for Perthians.” (He later added the actual photographs at the end of the post.)

    This perfectly innocent, matter-of-fact remark elicited bizarre reactions from the Perthians. Dan wrote on 7/5/07, “What a snide, mean-spirited remark.” The commentator “Servo” went totally berserk, displaying what seemed to be a nervous breakdown on this thread. The issue then became the existence of the virus (or the HIV clone which the Layne study was using), rather than the remarkable findings that John Moore had co-signed: that HIV became virtually non-infectious and spontaneously inactivated on its own!

    Will the commentators please return to Earth from planet Perth?

  66. MacDonald Says:

    If the Moorian name caller could disengage his focus from the gate he is keeping and refrain for sec. from labeling and lumping together such different commenters as Dan, Servo and Nick Naylor in a style indistinguishable from that practiced on NAR’s sister blog, AIDStruth.org, he would perhaps notice that in spite of several attempts there has been no discussion of the Layne et al. paper simply because the nominal OP reviewer of it, our gracious host cell, never made it beyond the abstract before he got distracted according to himself.

    But since you’re no doubt better informed, Mr. name caller, perhaps you could do this part of his job for him as well and explain what’s so remarkable about the HIV infectious molecular clone becoming non-infectious after a couple of days?

    And a hint for you, Mr. name caller: If you’re really interested in mounting a credible rather than laughable critique of Mr. Naylor’s analysis, you shouldn’t focus on the “physical particles” part, but on the “synthetic template” part. Even that other gatekeeping name caller, Chris Noble would know that.

  67. Nick Naylor Says:

    Mr Houston, like poor Adele over at Aetiology, is confused. I realize that nothing could be more boring than reading about chemical reactions, so the natural tendency is to get through it as fast as possible. Unfortunately, this strategy results in missing important points.

    Of course clones, by their very definition, means as many copies as you want from your ESTABLISHED CULTURE AND COMPLETE GENOMIC SEQUENCE in the lab’s “plasmid file” … into the gazillions perhaps. After all, that’s the whole point of the polymerase chain reaction.

    But this is irrelevant to the original claim by Gallo et al. I ask Mr Houston to re-read the posts on this which clearly show where the misrepresentation lies, in the time frame 1980 – 1985.

  68. Nick Naylor Says:

    “ …the remarkable findings that John Moore had co-signed: that HIV became virtually non-infectious and spontaneously inactivated on its own!”

    Precisely the point, CLONING is required in vitro to faithfully replicate the LTR-gag-pol-env-px-LTR vectors from those plasmids, which are lab constructions related to DNA viruses. Don’t you see the obvious here on planet earth, if inactivation is the natural tendency, it means “nonexistence” of an infectious multiplier.

    And so it’s back to the same old boring question: where and when has an ACTIVE immunodeficiency agent been found in AIDS patients that matches the specifications of a retrovirus.

  69. Robert Houston Says:

    Greetings, Perthlings!

    You’re all being addressed as denizens of that strange planet Perth because of an evident monomania exhibited on this thread for the existential issue so in vogue up there, to the exclusion of the important topics such as censorship and HIV’s weak infectivity, which were what Truthseeker’s post was actually discussing.

    Since I reminded him of the issues, Mr. MacDonald – feigning an alien ignorance about Earth ways – has asked, “what’s so remarkable about the HIV infectious molecular clone becoming non-infectious after a couple of days?” Please recall that the AIDS establishment advocates the use of powerful drugs in an effort to block productive infectivity of HIV, e.g., by inactivating the enzyme reverse transcriptase, and is pursuing vaccines to neutralize HIV proteins such as gp120 for the purpose of preventing infection. Moreover, the results of experiments with HIV clones are taken by conventional HIV research as representative of the natural virus, and the propaganda line has been that HIV is virulently infectious without ARV drug treatment.

    Yet, according to the 1992 findings by Layne and Moore et al. “In this study, the ratios of infectious to noninfectious virons ranged from 10^-4 to 10^-7…” As Truthseeker noted, that’s a range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 10 million. Moreover, the researchers concluded in their final paragraph, “we found that the processes governing the decay of HIV infectivity were exponential…” All without drugs! This helps explain why Nancy Padian reported that the rate of infectivity in her large study of HIV in couples was between 1 in 1100 and 1 in 9,000 encounters. This compares with about 1 in 3 encounters for transmission of typical STD infections.

    Nick Naylor wrote: “if inactivation is the natural tendency, it means ‘nonexistence’ of an infectious multiplier.” No, Sir, it simply means rarity of an existent entity.

    Mr. Naylor also asked, “where and when has an ACTIVE immunodeficiency agent been found in AIDS patients that matches the specification of a retrovirus.” You’ll have to ask AIDStruth types for that kind of evidence. As Duesberg points out, such evidence is lacking in regard to an “active immunodeficiency agent” in vivo, for HIV behaves as an innocuous passenger virus and is effectively neutralized by antibodies in the blood. The 1984 series of Gallo papers in Science, however, certainly provide evidence for a virus present in a minority of AIDS patients which has an RNA genome and reverse transcriptase activity and thus qualifies as a retrovirus.

  70. MacDonald Says:

    If Mr. name caller knows my question to be a trick, it is not easy to understand why he has no addressed the real point of it delivered earlier in a slightly dumbed down version for ease of host cell entry

    1) It is reeeeeeaaall simple dude, either the virus infects and clones (replicates) ‘ok’, or it doesn’t.
    2) So what if the infectious particles were one to 10 gazillion, and their half life 30 seconds if we have no comparison, context or frame of reference to to put this into?

    In other words, Mr. name caller, either the virus is multiplying just fine in ways and under conditions comparable to those in vivo only absent an immune-system, or it isn’t. That would be regardless of how many replication competent offspring there are in each cycle and how quickly they disintegrate.

    Or, as Chris Noble would have put it, has Mr. name caller, or the nominal reviewer bothered to check against other highly mutable RNA viruses supposedly operating near error threshold to see if HIV is doing anything out of the ordinary in this context in the Layne et al. paper? But perhaps this is a game gatekeepers have learned not to play?

    Alternatively, if HIV is neutralized by antibodies anyway, why would we care exactly how many infectious copies there are in 10 billions, or how quickly they fall apart? With reference to Mr. Naylor’s comment, which you still don’t seem to grasp, if HIV produces next to no infectious particles, even under optimal (artificial) in vitro conditions – particles which fall apart by themselves, and are all neutralized by antibodies to boot, how can the infectious multiplier infect and multiply, that is exist as an exogenous retrovirus, in vivo? HIV has nowhere been shown to have a vertical transmission rate high enough to be able to survive by this means.

    Does Mr. name caller believe in cell free HIV transmission? This is what Gallo claims to have shown in the first papers.

  71. Nick Naylor Says:

    “…HIV behaves as an innocuous passenger virus and is effectively neutralized by antibodies in the blood.”

    Here we get to the nub of the problem, Mr. Houston doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    First, we see complete ignorance of findings all over the place that immunoglobulins have more than “neutralizing” reaction possibilities given cross reactions, the generation of anti-anti-idiotypes, etc. If he wants to take a break from name calling and actually READ what Val Turner has to say on this subject, it would indeed be refreshing.

    But most importantly, does he even know what a passenger virus means in the context of this discussion? How can lymphocytes generate antibodies against a “passenger”, which in the retroviral case means a buried within chromatin provirus, and “neutralize” it, if it is not transcribed and REPRODUCED in its new host. This is not a case of “normal” viral cell-free transmission since a “taxicab” lymphocyte is required for transfer from the old host to the new host. The ordinary meaning of passenger should make this point clear; INACTIVE, no evidence for a reproduction of a complete new “HIV genome” in any host (organism), therefore not meeting the necessary criteria to be considered an “existing” autonomous agent.

    So, an autonomous immunodeficiency retro-agent capable of cell-free transmission and “standard-textbook” viral multiplication has never been shown to exist; it is biologically implausible given the properties of reverse transcriptase.

    As far as the rest, all I can say is welcome to Planet Perth.

  72. Truthseeker Says:

    The Perthians seem to generate nothing but confusion and disordered ideas in their supposedly great challenge to Duesberg and Houston, and now we have them accusing Houston of name calling. There is no name calling that we can discern in what Houston wrote and the blog host would be obliged if this false accusation was omitted from the responses. Houston’s accusation of monomania was a description of the Perthian response to our post and seem very accurate, rather than name calling.

    For as Houston points out the point of the post was to show that John P. Moore put his name to a paper which made it very clear that HIV was no threat to human health. To sidetrack this into a debate over the existence of HIV is to overlook the extraordinary importance of this paper in the political struggle where a few idealistic and extremely naive people who understand what is going on are attacking a mountain impervious even to the mother-of-all-bunker-busters dropped last year by Harpers, which seems to have bounced off the surface of the mountain and exploded harmlessly in the sea of ignorance with which the mountain is surrounded.

    The whole issue of the existence or nonexistence of HIV is absurd not because there isn’t a hollow at the center of HIV∫AIDS – there is a hollow in almost every aspect but that one point, given the questionable meaning of the tests for HIV antibodies and the screamingly self-referential picture they describe – ever wondered why the elite of America don’t seem to score positive very often if at all? Could that have something to do with the fact that the interpretation of the test has something to do with whether one is a risk group or not? Something seems to be indicating that the rich and white get a free pass which the blacks, browns and poor whites do not get. (Thanks to Elizabeth Ely for bringing this to our attention).

    But to confuse the issue wth the the suspicion that HIV as an entity that may be entirely fantastic as well as the whole scheme that surrounds it that is being peddled with it as centerpiece only muddles the perception of that hollowness at the core of this theory, which is best described as ideology rather than hypothesis. The fact that the arguments advanced to suggest that HIV hasn’t been established as an existing entity are couched in scientific terms doesn’t do anyone any credit, since they flout basic statements which science has made, not HIV fantasists, eg the fact that HIV is routed by antibodies in the bloodstream.

    How can lymphocytes generate antibodies against a “passenger”, which in the retroviral case means a buried within chromatin provirus, and “neutralize” it, if it is not transcribed and REPRODUCED in its new host

    This is an example. What on earth does this statement mean? What is it intended to contradict? HIV is transcribed and reproduced in its human host, is it not, before antibodies are generated and knock it back to the stone age ie expel it from the system. Its character as a “passenger” is surely its inability to do any harm, or anything at all, to the healthy functioning of the host. All one can conclude is that your point must be that there is no virus as such in the host which is the same as the one cloned in the lab dish with which we are all so familiar, or that the antibodies against HIV are not very specific to HIV, and might always be indicating other things rather than the Virus.

    Whatever you mean, will you please state it. As you have been asked more than once, what reality are you suggesting to replace the reality claimed by the HIV paradigm gang, and/or Duesberg, and/or Houston, and/or anyone else who points out to you that HIV is cloned, infects, reproduces in the dish? If you are saying that that is what is happening in the lab, but it isn’t what is shown to be happening in the body, then say so straightforwardly say what you believe is happening in the body.

    As soon as you do, then my envisaged post on the best arguments why the Perthian position is absurd can go ahead and be compared with your theory/hypothesis/alternate reality, and we can see what the comparison is. I know that none of you are professional writers but you are all very intelligent and well informed and it should not be beyond you to say what you mean so it cannot be mistaken.

    Please remember that any postscripts to Comments that you want to make to correct or clarify will be added if you email them to us.

  73. Robert Houston Says:

    Thanks for the welcome to your peculiar planet, Nick, but all the same I’d prefer stay on good old Terra Firma.

    As Duesberg uses the term, “passenger virus” is merely a virus that goes along for the ride in the body of the host without causing disease. It is not necessarily a virus that is confined to a proviral state in the cell, as you mistakenly suggest. It can persist as a provirus or be reproduced after transcription as a virion outside the cell. Thus, the argument that a passenger virus can’t generate antibodies since it’s only in the cell is simply fallacious.

    Contrary to Mr. Naylor’s apparent assertion that neutralization doesn’t occur, there have been a number of studies demonstrating that antibodies to HIV do have a neutralizing effect, starting with that of virologist Robin Weiss in England (Neutralization of HTLV-III by sera of AIDS and AIDS-risk patients. Nature 316:69-72, 1985). As for transmission routes, I believe that the current thinking is that HIV can be transmitted both in macrophages and lymphocytes, and as cell-free particles.

    Mr. MacDonald displays a jaded, world-weary attitude as if it were a meaningful argument. The gist of his comment seems to be: so what if HIV is virtually non-infectious, since any amount is sufficient and it’s neutralized anyway. But in the real world it’s known that the degree of infectivity and proportion of infective particles are important determinants of the efficiency of an infection, i.e., how well it “takes” and can be maintained. While MacD may yawn in his Perthian perch, here on Earth most people would be surprised to learn that, according to Layne and John Moore et al., HIV is at least 99.99% non-infectious.

    Live long and prosper, Perthlings!

  74. MacDonald Says:

    The sorely missed host cell is back in his inimitable style and with the usual talking points in reponse to Mr. Naylor.

    1) (feigned) incomprehension: “Who is calling you Perthians names?”

    2) (feigned) gentlemanly indignation under cover of which one can persist in one’s own ungentlemanly conduct: “Will you Perth sympathizers immediatly stop calling us name callers”.

    3) The usual (not feigned at all) threat of censorship: “Will you Perthlings immediately stop calling us name callers, or else. . . !!”

    4) More incomprehension (sadly some of it may be real): “What on earth does this statement mean?”. “Whatever you mean will you please state it?” etc. etc. etc.

    5) The indispensable extension of the incomprehension (feigned or not) strategy: “please explain yourself again, and again, and again, and again, so I can limit myself to popping by once in a while and declare that you’re still not clear”. [This will of course only work on your own blog, where you’re in full control and can at any time pull the plug and declare yourself the winner. If the host cell were to try it on for example Aetiology, he’d get creamed, which I suspect is the reason he prefers to stay at home and lock the door]

    6) Avoid or obfuscate any attempt at real debate by sweeping nonsensical or derogatory statements and rhetorical flourishes with zero scientific content.

    To view but one example of how extremely ridiculous, not to mention tedious and irrelevant it can get when this strategy is pursued robotically, have a look a few comments up, where the same person who flatters himself that he masters the details well enough to judge in the matter of the HIV molecular clone displays the extent of his expertise in this reponse to Henry Bauer:

    Henry, why not make what you are saying absolutely clear [See points 4,5 above for an explanation of this misplaced request for further clarification of an already very clearly stated point], since it is definitely one escape hatch that Perthians are still trying to scramble through. But we are not sure how it works. Is the idea that a cloned HIV might yield particles of a uniform type which can be photographed, but that this may be misleading, since they are not the same HIV particles as might be found in patients? If so, how do they differ, or might they differ?

    To fully appreciate the genius on display here, please note that Bauer’s, clearly stated, point was that HIV particles had NOT been extracted directly from patients. Not surpringly Bauer didn’t have an answer to how the yet to be extracted “HIV” might differ from the lab construct. (See point 6 for this gatekeeper classic: show-stopping nonsense that appears “scientific” only to the most casual glance.)

    After more of the same, my absolute favourite:

    Why isn’t a picture of cloned HIV good enough to say There it is, folks. The Virus that is sweeping the world, right before your eyes?

    No folks, I’m not making this up or putting a spin on it. The NAR host cell, self-proclaimed judge of HIV science, doesn’t understand why a clone cannot be an original reference standard, as evidenced in this answer to Servo, which I think is what prompted Henry Bauer to join in the “hard battle indeed for his friends to teach Mr. Toad even a little sense”. (to quote from the cover of an edificatory book not only for children):

    our standard is trust in the clear electron micrographs accompanying the article, which shows particles [the Layne et al. “HIV” clones] which are round, structured and consistent in shape and size

    Not surprisingly Henry Bauer had nothing further to say to Mr. Toad on this issue. Neither do I

    ((MacDonald, if you wish to detract from the host’s otherwise sterling reputation perhaps you could achieve more than 0/100 accuracy, and try to make some cogent points which actually add to the discussion, ie accounting for your objections with reason and data? Much obliged. – Ed.))

  75. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. name caller, I cannot help noticing here from my perch where I sympathize with Perth, kaffers, gays and other riffraff that you still haven’t spiced your answers with even one replication competent virion.

    Surprised as some of us may be at learning that HIV is dubbed a quasispecies and may replicate near error threshold, that surprise hardly constitutes a scientific argument. So again, would Mr. name caller care to show us by comparison with other highly mutable RNA viruses that the in the Layne et al paper observed “HIV”-related phenomena are not quite ordinary in the world of virology?

    And again, would he care to explain how a “virtually uninfectious” entity survives as an exogenous virus? That is, would he care to come to Duesberg’s aid and show how the virtually uninfectious entity survives as a non-horizontally transmissible endemic virus in the wild with a perinatal transmission rate well below 50%?

    Or does name calling look the more attractive option from his watchtower atop the shut and bolted entrance gates to the nevernever land of virology?

  76. MacDonald Says:

    That’s non-infectious. “Uninfectious” is not a proper word, and in these high matters it is important to be proper and non-reductionist.

  77. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, maybe you’ve heard the expression, “if we don’t name things properly we can’t think clearly about them”. It’s related to Korzybski’ General Semantics: the map is not the territory but we still need accurate maps. Which, of course, means they’re subject to revision. It’s as simple as that.

    I don’t know if this is “name-calling”, but I’ve actually come to admire Mr. Houston’s very brilliant display of mental masturbation.

    What you two don’t seem to realize is Peter Duesberg’s ju-jitsu style of counter-argument 1987-1990.

    ((For God’s sake, gentlemen, can we avoid such metaphors? Surely we are not so verbally challenged? – Ed.))

  78. Nick Naylor Says:

    “Its character as a ‘passenger’ is surely its inability to do any harm, or anything at all, to the healthy functioning of the host. All one can conclude is that your point must be that there is no virus as such in the host which is the same as the one cloned in the lab dish with which we are all so familiar, or that the antibodies against HIV are not very specific to HIV, and might always be indicating other things rather than the Virus.”

    Exactly, TS, you’ve got it: one of the necessary revisions to the map of our understanding. AND let’s not forget the many research papers that document MHC and heat shock proteins in “purified virions”. Here the logical inference is that those particles we see in the EM’s are “organelles” of the cell that only “exist” when it is in a state of emergency. (Which every “immortal” cell in a culture must pass through.)

  79. Nick Naylor Says:

    “…why the Perthian position is absurd …”

    And then, alas you disappoint, just as I think we’re getting somewhere.

    TS, do I have to explain what an idealization is to you and how different an approach it is from Peter Duesberg’s brilliant style of turning the logic of his opponents against them, especially in the earlier papers?

    At this point you don’t comprehend 70S RNA dimeric genome in retroviruses? the meaning of synthetic?

    And this is all my fault so I’m condemned to endlessly repeat myself here?

    What do you mean what do I mean? LOL

  80. Nick Naylor Says:

    “As Duesberg uses the term, ‘passenger virus’ is merely a virus that goes along for the ride in the body of the host without causing disease. It is not necessarily a virus that is confined to a proviral state in the cell, as you mistakenly suggest. It can persist as a provirus or be reproduced after transcription as a virion outside the cell. Thus, the argument that a passenger virus can’t generate antibodies since it’s only in the cell is simply fallacious.

    “Contrary to Mr. Naylor’s apparent assertion that neutralization doesn’t occur, there have been a number of studies demonstrating that antibodies to HIV do have a neutralizing effect, starting with that of virologist Robin Weiss in England (Neutralization of HTLV-III by sera of AIDS and AIDS-risk patients. Nature 316:69-72, 1985). As for transmission routes, I believe that the current thinking is that HIV can be transmitted both in macrophages and lymphocytes, and as cell-free particles.”

    Fine, Robert Houston, you’re the professional writer, but your eloquence notwithstanding, these statements beg the original questions which I’ve answered in the previous posts. Surely you’re aware in the debates how (especially David Rasnick) pointed out that titles of papers from HIVists are misleading. So our collective experience at this point should prevent us from going around in circles on these matters: did Dr Weiss demonstrate “neutralization” (meaning turning complete virions from “infectious” to “noninfectious” – not just binding “HIV proteins”) in vivo? I’ll make the $1,000 wager right here right now sight unseen – he didn’t.

    Any takers?

    A passenger is normally “contained” within a vehicle. If you want to say the whole body is the “vehicle”, that means Ebola would qualify and the term becomes meaningless.

    And cell-free transmission of COMPLETE retroviruses requires structural stability, which puts the burden of proof on those who argue for it. This, of course is the point of the Perth Group’s idealizations, it’s their recommended criteria for establishing this point.

    Can you tell me what’s “absurd” about this?

  81. Nick Naylor Says:

    “HIV is at least 99.99% non-infectious.”

    The Duesberg/Bialy response in Nature, 1995 after Ho and Wei.

    I restated this ages ago at Aetiology (a confirmation based on Piatak et al, Science, 1993) where they said the infectious/defective ratio could be even lower!

    Which begs other questions:

    How close is this to the Perth position?

    Does one need the “spectacles” of an authority figure to see the obvious?

    What is this controversy really about?

  82. Truthseeker Says:

    At this point you don’t comprehend 70S RNA dimeric genome in retroviruses? the meaning of synthetic?

    And this is all my fault so I’m condemned to endlessly repeat myself here?

    Gentlemen, gentlemen. There comes a point in chewing over an issue with people who claim to have an informed view different from the norm where one looks to see why a feeling creeps over one that they are so logically and verbally challenged that it makes no sense to continue the discussion, however well meaning they might be, and in this case one is perilously close to that point. There is also the sense that those who humorlessly sneer and demean those they are addressing instead of sticking to the point are merely camouflaging their ignorance, since what otherwise is the point of filling a blog which addresses things at the professional level but tries to convey the basics of the material to the outside public with such nonsense?

    No, we are not referring to the amiable and kindly phrased Houstonian placing of the Perthians on another planet, which is merely light hearted jollity. Kindly cease to speculate invidiously as to the motivations or competence of any other poster, please, especially those of the blog host, whose long suffering patience is exhausted, just as our expectations of getting any sense out of the Perthians here is fading rapidly to boot.

    Unless “Nick” and “MacDonald” wish to clean up their act and state their supposed science with clarity and as requested define the reality they see as opposed to the reality they condemn as fantasy, this thread will indeed be terminated as far as the blog is concerned, since all our dwindling faith in the cogency and validity of their claims will expire.

    For the umpteenth time, “Nick”, please, put up or shut up. We are not asking you to do anything you shouldn’t want to do. What is the scheme in your mind which describes what is going on, if the standard description is not acceptable to you? Do you in fact have a clear idea on this or not? If so state it, if not please then perhaps you should play on this theme somewhere else, for example Aetiology, one of “MacD”‘s haunts, it seems, where half informed and semi literate science on both sides generates threads which we know from a few cursory glances we can safely ignore, since they have every characteristic of half baked, half informed and half worked out argument where cooperative discussion with mutual respect would be far more appropriate under the circumstances. The preoccupation with trees indicates a blindness to the shape of the forest, if it continues too long.

    This is a blog devoted to maintaining professional standards both in reading and referring to the literature and talking without assuming expertise where none or only some is there. We are concerned with what is known, what is not known. and what is falsely claimed, and how the public is misled, and how they can be correctly informed by those who can think about the topics we are dealing with. This blog has an embarrassing record of attracting people who claim to know more than they do, and who use their ignorance to raise false objections instead of humbly exchanging comments in an attempt to find out the truth of the matter, which is the appropriate way in the circumstances, and the style of this blog.

    If the Perthians here can state what is their own account of reality in straightforward terms which any member of the public can understand and discuss, then they should do so, and stop complaining about their inability to get their points across when they don’t make such an effort.

    Taking refuge in comments and projections about the motivation, characteristics (“ignorance”) and behavior of other people and the blog host are fit for the usual run of blogs which we like any other intelligent person with a life to live do not waste time reading, for the simple reason that we recognize the confusion and complexity generated by arrogant (=defensive) ignorant opinion and that it is hopeless to try and disentangle it and make something of it in order to solve confusion. It is a peculiar advantage of the Web that it has exposed this truth more brilliantly than any other medium: difficulty and burying basic outline in detail is a sign of lack of understanding, and suggests, potentially, inability to understand.

    Since of course none of this applies to the distinguished contributors to Comments here we feel it is not unfair to make this simple demand, often made on television: state your case, Sirs, in a sound bite. In this case we mean, as we have said more than once, tell us your reality before we proceed any further, ie before we proceed with our reality and see which fits the data better.

    One paragraph should do it.

  83. MacDonald Says:

    One paragraph should do it

    It took 8 paragraphs to say that.

  84. Truthseeker Says:

    It took 8 paragraphs to say that.

    Actually, it has taken about twenty five paragraphs of polite repetition in various guises. Come on guys, shouldn’t be beyond you. Sure, committing yourselves to an alternative scenario is – aaaah! help! my God! – scary, since it may be shot down, but at least you will have stood up, and stood for, and not just stood still, carping from the bleachers about what you imagine are screws missing from the standard construct.

    Onward, Perthians, onward!

  85. Nick Naylor Says:

    so this is what it comes down to …. you’re living in a fantasy world … no you’re living in a fantasy world … no you’re …

  86. Nick Naylor Says:

    basically TS you’re full of shit … truthseeker you’re most definitly not … you’re dealing in bad faith as anyone can see … you’ve exposed yourself on the worldwidse web for the fraud you are .,..

  87. Nick Naylor Says:

    How many alternative scenarios do you want???!!!!

    Read your own goddamn blog?

    Are you an illiterate?

    No, just afraid of the truth.

  88. Truthseeker Says:

    How many alternative scenarios do you want???!!!!

    One.

    Well, there we are, for all the world to see. The Perthians have no alternative construct to offer, which vitiates all their apparently rather silly views. All we get are three Web-impolite expostulations. Readers will draw their own conclusions as to who is a “fraud” etc etc. (By the way, anyone embarrassed by their too hasty or casual posts in Comments can always apply by email to have them stricken from the record without prejudice. No point in hanging posters up to twist in the wind for the sake of some ill-considered remark.)

    This is faintly disappointing, though. We imagined there was more there there, even though skimming what reads as nonsense most of the time suggested there was even less than meets the eye. Also, we hate to agree with the Adelaide judge who didn’t show any interest or ability to think through any of the science for himself.

    On the other hand, the unfortunate Peter Duesberg has had to put up with this theoretical tin can attached to his rear bumper for too many years now, one which has detracted from his own reputation by unasked for association. This is the cross good men have to bear, it seems, now that the Web is so busy with amateur iconoclasts. We are glad that it is so clearly exposed here as the product of confused thinking and attitude rather than clear analysis of the data, so that we now know that the complaints raised against the standard understanding do not arise from any alternative interpretation that can be formulated in a paragraph.

    It is about time that this aberrant monster was put to rest before it continues to do any more damage to the reputation of those who argue against the paradigm that HIV is lethal. We shall soon drive a stake through its heart in a post that will sum up the standard view and the complaints raised against it, and the perfectly good answers to them pointed out by Duesberg in a mode that in public is as polite as ever, but in private is a lot more scornful than that.

    Sometimes politeness is a sign of how weak the case or those that make it seem to those forced to reply, perhaps. So we will now politely address this case in a post, and see if the Perthians can think up anything more cogent than expostulations and detraction to counter it. On their present performance as above, it seems that the result is a foregone conclusion.

  89. Robert Houston Says:

    Is Perth World really an amusement park? Judging from the juvenile behavior of its devotees on this thread, it seems to be a form of Fantasyland for children and emotionally retarded adults.

    In his last three comments, Truthseeker has presented a number of excellent points and pertinent questions. Instead of addressing the issues he raised, the response from the Perthians has been snotty personal attacks. In fact, the pattern of MacDonald’s comments suggests the efforts of an insolent brat trying to stick it to the local authority figure. For some time, Mr. MacDonald seems to have been pursuing a personal vendetta against Truthseeker, perpetually trying to disparage him personally in order to score some kind of brownie points. As a reader I find such puerile game-playing to be annoying and offensive, as well as a useless distraction from the real issues.

    MacDonald’s buddy, Nick Naylor, seems to enjoy riding his little hobby horse around the park, and pretending it’s a high horse. It’s not just Truthseeker and the readers who find much of his writing unclear. On earlier threads Dr. Martell, a professional virologist, could make little sense of Mr. Naylor’s often poorly expressed views and obscurantism either, and finally refused to have further exchanges with him.

    Grow up, Perthverts!

  90. MacDonald Says:

    Gramercy noble jousters, I’m waving my tart’s handkerchief, all in tatters after that last double-barreled volley of overwhelming scientific evidence. I hope the handkerchief’s owner would think no ill of me or my buddy Nick for turning tails at his opportune moment where not only the local authority figure, an imposing presence in his own right, but also the almighty Martel has been invoked. (For those unfamiliar with this Mother of all Authorities, Martel’s most enduring achievement on NAR was introducing the “You’re unintelligible, I’ve won!” line, henceforth the most potent weapon in the local authority figure’s scientific arsenal. Martel is also known for endless assertions of his inability to discover HIV in the human genome in spite of coutless earnest BLAST searches, and for demonstrating conclusively that Elisa Jane Scovill died of paediatric AIDS)

    Let it be said in our defence that were it only scientific authority bearing down on us thus overwhelmingly we should not have surrendered the field with such fear and trembling. But, as can be ascertained two comments up, even the Ultimate spiritual Authority has now been invoked, and my buddy Nick and myself been accused of adding weight to his Cross.

    Against these odds we dare not prevail. Let us therefore be the first to implore the local representative of that Authority to purge the thread of offensive material by striking without prejudice all our hasty and ill-considered remarks from the record.

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    Great Caesar, what have we here? Has even the imperturbable Houston been roused from his emotional torpor – sorry, his calm objectivity in the face of error and confusion – to chastise the Pervians, er Perthians, certainly not Pervertians, no Sir, that is not nice, even though they may have perverted the course of the sweet, crystal clear spring of True Science into a muddy backwater of misguided metaskepticism . No Sir, especially since any such temporary diversion by the eager beavers busy damming the BS in this flood of fantastic foolery that is HIV∫AIDS is totally understandable in the circumstances – where nothing else is credible, why should the Virus be so?

    Our flab is aghast, our ghast has never been so flabby. That is to say, we are flabbergasted at this development, and need time to absorb this blow to the normal calm and placid surface of the obscure woodland swimming hole that is this humble blog in the vast network of riverlets and streams and rivers of Science as it flows to the Sea of Truth and Acceptance. It is as if a Lochness Monster of contention and dissonance has suddenly reared from the mirror like surface beauty of our general agreement in one of the few sunlit clearings of enlightenment in the dark forest of ignorance and storytelling.

    Certainly anyone who invokes the spirit of the Virus which was not there to account for the death of the precious and always to be remembered tot is someone who is beyond the scientific pale, we grant you, and if this unprecedented and novel Houstonian strategy of jeering and jibing has led to MacDonald making this salient point, then perhaps it has a Purpose after all.

    We like to think that the God of Science before whom we abase ourselves in the Muslim manner (nose in the dust, bottom in the air) has a Purpose for all things She allows to happen especially in this Temple devoted to Her praise.

  92. Truthseeker Says:

    OK, since Nick “Imperturbable” Naylor won’t or can’t come up with his own construct, perhaps we can do it for him.

    The supposed Virus is nothing that is found in the human bloodstream, for there only bits and pieces of long resident parts of “HIV” have ever been detected, floating around off the genome like odd spare parts, and even though they have been artificially stuck together in the labs of miscreant HIV researchers, just as Dr Frankenstein assembled his child loving monster, into an Viruslike Assembly which then manages somehow to infect cells and somehow be reproduced when those cells multiply, and somehow maintain its genomic nature through all this excitement, this is a Clone, a Chimera, not a virus, and certainly not The Virus said to infect humans and kill them, in whom it is not reliably detected by tests which after all have never been validated even by a Clone, or if by a Clone then certainly not by a Virus found in humans, and to Heck with your Cloning, Infectious, Multiplying Virus, you are seeing things, suckers, just like you see SARS, or the Bird Flu, call in Derren Brown and he will demonstrate.

    Is that OK, Pervians, what say you? We did our best.

  93. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, TS, TS …

    OK, you did your best. Need I point out that you’re best is the logical equivalent of Nobel, Dale, etc which can easily be confirmed by bothering to read their never-ending demands for an “alternative” and caricatures of opponents at the Aetiology debates, especially where I was DEFENDING PETER DUESBERG’S POSITION (the flat curve and all that).

    Look, I’m not in the business of tearing down great men. How much do we owe him for debunking the fallacies of cancer research alone – never mind his pre-1996 contributions on the fallacy of HIV causing AIDS.

    But since he claimed the Continuum Award … I see a big screw-up. Equivalent to many of my own let me quickly add, because that’s the nature of the beast when human beings try to change things. When I contemplate the hypothetical me authoring as many papers listed at the end of Harvey’s book, no doubt there’d be lots more that would be subject to revision.

    But we have a huge problem here and I do so wish I could be shown to be wrong that Peter Duesberg is the only one who can correct it – so that the apparent “finish line” that Michael Ellner describes can become a real one. (This is my considered opinion anyway.)

    Why the anger of yesterday: we’re not repeating “Perthian” talking points as your mocking implies. (but leave the posts up if you don’t mind.)

    It’s very simple: if everything I posted at this site since Adelaide does NOT show that Gallo perjured himself on “mass production = purification” based on reverse transcriptase kinetics that any chemist can understand: point out my errors. I simply went to the 1970 to 1984 “orthodox” retroviral papers, not those of Perth, to make the case.

    Is it too much to hope for a cease fire in one more useless war?

  94. Nick Naylor Says:

    BTW, that’s me, Gene Semon up there.

  95. MacDonald Says:

    we’re not repeating “Perthian” talking points

    Dammit Mr. Naylor!!

    Why do you have to go and spoil my fun! The two scientific gentlemen were supposed to discover that for themselves – after the laughs!

  96. Truthseeker Says:

    “MacDonald”, the attitude of your last post is half witted – in the sense that when an immature schoolboy takes refuge in defensive laughter in case taking a topic seriously reveals his ignorance and naivete, it is a half witted strategy, since among other things it guarantees that he will learn nothing.

    Gene, what on earth does your post mean? The logic is missing or backwards in every paragraph. In the first place, it doesn’t help to take what you say seriously if you don’t trouble to spell correctly (“you’re”, and “Nobel” – the guy’s name is Noble, Nobel is the name of the Swedish gentleman who founded a well known set of prizes), but that wouldn’t matter if anything you wrote made sense. Please don’t refer us to the Aetiology debates, since as we have said above this is precisely where the intellect and expertise of participants is so low that intelligent people with a life to live do not trouble to try and make sense out of it. Did you not read our comment? It was only a few posts ago. If you did, why do you ignore it?

    Our request for you to produce an alternative scenario is simply an attempt to make sense out of what you write, and if it is a request that has been made of you by others, then perhaps it is for the same reason. If you really believe the Pervians are right to complain that we are not dealing with a Virus of a consistent genetic structure which behaves like a retrovirus and which is reliably cloned, infects and multiplies in culture and in vivo its trail is detected in humans by a test for the antibodies it generates, then say so and tell us what you think is really going on. If you can’t, say why not. Otherwise stop wasting the time of people who read and contribute to this blog.

    To be unkindly honest your post above contains so little sense that we guess it may be better for you not to post here any more, not because you are not well intentioned and not because you may not have some cogent point to make buried beneath what you write, but because you do appear to be unable to write a straight sentence or express a straight thought. In this you and “MacDonald” make a match, which suggests you have each other trained in some peculiar way to form a club devoted to some purpose only you two understand, but we guess might be to gain attention on the Web, without actually committing to any particular point of view..

    We are glad you apparently retain some respect for Peter Duesberg and would suggest that you simply follow his lead in every matter, which would be a great simplification for you and everybody else here. However, if you quarrel with him on the answer he gave in Continuum to the challenge to prove that the Virus does indeed exist as a viable entity distinct from other retroviruses but behaving in the same manner, then tell us why very specifically and your own conception of the real truth in this regard, or simply cease posting on this topic.

    It’s very simple: if everything I posted at this site since Adelaide does NOT show that Gallo perjured himself on “mass production = purification” based on reverse transcriptase kinetics that any chemist can understand: point out my errors.

    If this is your point then for the umpteenth time what do you think the correct account of what he did is, what the Virus is, what the antibody tests detect if not the trail of the Virus, and what light if any does it all throw on the Pervian view that you have intimated you share, but no longer wish to discuss for some reason, even though it has been the red herring under discussion in this post’s Comments ever since you brought it up?

    If you cannot answer these question straightforwardly then please allow us to ignore what you say in future on any related topic, especially any remarks telling us to read Val Turner to see what you mean. We have posts to write, having recovered sufficiently from our disgust at the drivel peddled to the audience of Charlie Rose this week by HIV∫AIDS “experts” such as the discredited David Ho without so much as a whimper of protest from the dazzled host.

  97. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. Host cell, that’s hardly fair. You should know, being a Kary Mullis fan, that nobody is laughing at the topic; they are laughing at you robotically repeating over and over your set points 4 and 5 in response to ordinary everyday prose…

    (see here)

    … and now adding that final step: picking on a typo to avoid looking up what those difficult sounding words “reverse transcriptase kinetics” mean. lol!

    If Aetiology, with commenters like Chris Noble and Trrl, whom you thought the world of when they were here on NAR, not least their irreproachable politesse, is not to your liking, or if you despise the low intelligence and expertise of the “Pervian” Andrew Maniotis, who has delivered a dozen very substantive comments over there lately, which, among many other things, would have kept you up to date on the racist tests even if Elizabeth Ely hadn’t been kind enough to drop it in your mailbox, let me refer you to the 2005 Dean’s World debate where the topic was the flat HIV incidence curve and the cast of characters the same including your illustrious self.

    But waitaminit! How can a test be intentionally discriminatory that is simply looking for the isolated, cloned and characterized HIV? Is Elizabeth Ely a Pervian too? It would probably be better not to read Henry Bauer’s book and find out. It’s rumoured to contain a couple of typos as well.

    PS. Note how I’ve kindly left you a way out of taking my reference to Dean’s World seriously though I’ve spelled “Noble” correctly. You can instead limit your response to ridiculing the logic of calling a flat line a curve and refuse to read any author who would do that.

  98. Robert Houston Says:

    Truthseeker, while I can sympathise with your reactions to the recent posts of the Perthuaded gentlemen, as a reader I had a rather different response.

    In fact, I was about to commend Gene (Nick Naylor) for his last comment, which seemed to me generally clear and mature. As a brief comment, it should not be judged on the basis that it does not spell out in detail all his investigations, thinking and conclusions about HIV, since that was not the purpose of his comment. Basically, he was calling for a “cease fire.” I hope he will be allowed to continue to post. By the way, I do intend to answer some questions he and his compadre raised, when there’s more time.

    While the humor of Mr. MacDonald’s pithy last comment escapes me, it seems rather innocent. It should be noted that MacD’s longer comment before that was something of a literary gem (“noble jousters…”), as was Truthseeker’s stunning followup (“Great Caesar…”) Both were hilarious and superb.

  99. Truthseeker Says:

    In fact, I was about to commend Gene (Nick Naylor) for his last comment, which seemed to me generally clear and mature.

    That’s alright, Robert, if you can translate we would be very happy to find out what was meant which you find so clear, although we agree it was noncombative, which is certainly mature. But what exactly was meant? Perhaps you can help here. We didn’t even know what the requested “cease fire” referred to, since as we read it, the only grenades lobbed were from Planet Perth, save for your own coinage of Perthverts, which we felt should be shortened to Pervians for smoothness on the tongue, always of vital importance when expanding the vocabulary. All we asked from Planet Perth was a short statement of science as understood up there, in order for mere mortals to catch up without ploughing through pages of backwards reeling sentences whose exact meaning only knows God.

    That was not too painful a demand, we thought. Now we have provided a template for our interplanetary visitors to adjust to their own specifications. Sadly, we see only more backwards reeling statements galloping off in six directions at once. But since you apparently see through the clouds of confusion to the ideas they camouflage from us, at least, we look forward to your elucidation. It would be of great help here, since even the reason for not producing the summary outline is obscure to us.

    As to anyone being barred from this site, that will only happen. if it ever does. to those who insist on sabotaging its purpose, which is to clarify, if they do it with mischievous intent, of which the distinguished and honorable Gene is hardly an example.

    Meanwhile we thought our own literary effort was slightly better than MacD’s, since it contains more metaphors, garbled though they were, but neither were superb. We believe you may be losing perspective, but we hope not, since we await your or Gene’s clarification with eager anticipation.

  100. Truthseeker Says:

    Mr. Host cell, that’s hardly fair. You should know, being a Kary Mullis fan, that nobody is laughing at the topic; they are laughing at you robotically repeating over and over your set points 4 and 5 in response to ordinary everyday prose…

    (see here)

    … and now adding that final step: picking on a typo to avoid looking up what those difficult sounding words “reverse transcriptase kinetics” mean. lol!

    Interesting that you should think “reverse transcriptase kinetics” was a difficult phrase, MacD, quite revealing in fact. Which word is it that you think would throw anybody other than yourself? Some or all of them?

    Anyhow, there was nothing unfair about characterising your comment like your whole behavior on this blog and presumably elsewhere as reminiscent of nothing so much as the behavior of teenagers who have just reached sexual maturity and encounter some ravishing damsel before whom they are both terrified and desperate to make a good impression on, so they make or try to make clever remarks with as little actual content as possible, in order to feel out whether they stand a chance of acceptance, all of it covered in as many outbursts of nervous laughter as possible to make sure that no one has the chance to laugh at them first.

    Is that unfair? Then why the endless and interminable superficial feints and jokes covering up the almost buried content in your thinking processes, exemplified as ever by this post?

    We feel that it is time for you also MacD to put up or shut up. From now on please exclude the reflex repetitions of how we admired Chris Noble and Trrll etc –

    If Aetiology, with commenters like Chris Noble and Trrl, whom you thought the world of when they were here on NAR, not least their irreproachable politesse,

    for their politesse, when we also admired them for their ability to make scientific statements and objections based on papers and data, which you sadly seem almost never to manage, and if you do quote someone or something kindly specify at least one or two points in what you are recommending, and why you like them

    is not to your liking, or if you despise the low intelligence and expertise of the “Pervian” Andrew Maniotis, who has delivered a dozen very substantive comments over there lately

    and please excise your comments of imaginative leaps based on data relevant to the point, such as

    which, among many other things, would have kept you up to date on the racist tests even if Elizabeth Ely hadn’t been kind enough to drop it in your mailbox,

    which overlooks a) the fact that Ely was reminding me as I believe I said of a point which has come up many times before but been insufficiently emphasized, and was conveyed by this charming philosopher in person and not by mail, and perhaps also you could stop referring people to enormous threads from other blogs from years past without specifying what exactly is the point you are referring to, which in this case is slightly irrelevant, since the flatness of the “curve” has nothing to do with the quality of the tests, but with the number of people over the years who scored positive on them.

    let me refer you to the 2005 Dean’s World debate where the topic was the flat HIV incidence curve and the cast of characters the same including your illustrious self.

    Also, perhaps you could think through what you intend to say before shooting from the hip and hitting yourself in the foot as in

    But waitaminit! How can a test be intentionally discriminatory that is simply looking for the isolated, cloned and characterized HIV? Is Elizabeth Ely a Pervian too? It would probably be better not to read Henry Bauer’s book and find out. It’s rumoured to contain a couple of typos as well.

    where a moment’s thought would tell you that bias in interpretation so blatantly part of the instructions given to testers is an issue in and of itself, and has nothing to do with the egregious malleability and inaccuracy of the tests themselves on other fronts.

    And for the Lord’s Sake, MacD, perhaps you could make an effort to contribute something intelligent and databased instead of revealing yourself in a PS to be burbling like a cute little two year old instead of contributing the 24 carat gold wisdom that your intelligence and wit have proved you fully capable of in the not so dim and distant past, even when you were being emailed by the presumably now iatrogenically injured or possibly even killed Rasputin of Cuernevaca to purposely mount attacks on this blog to undermine its credibility.

    On this blog we do not need to hear from great men in their moments of lack of concentration and postprandial torpor, whatever the source of the distraction in a foreign land well known for its charms of every kind, physical and spiritual.

    PS. Note how I’ve kindly left you a way out of taking my reference to Dean’s World seriously though I’ve spelled “Noble” correctly. You can instead limit your response to ridiculing the logic of calling a flat line a curve and refuse to read any author who would do that.

    We cannot afford to lose you to whatever it is that is resulted in this statement. Bear up, man! The Americans conquered China with one gunboat (or was it the British, we cannot recall, your lack of concentration and serious purpose is catching). You can do it, man.

    We are behind you! Er, waiddaminnit, hold that phrase, we mean that we support you wholeheartedly in your struggle to give life to your serious ideas through the filters of your profound humility and comic sensitivity and with your eyes dazzled by the shining virtues of those you address.

  101. Robert Houston Says:

    I’ve been requested by Truthseeker in a comment above to provide my interpretation of Gene’s most recent message from Perthworld, since I found it “generally clear and mature.”

    The message says he can’t approve the Truthseeker summary of the Perth rationale for doubting HIV but doesn’t specify any error. He has defended Duesberg’s original position on AIDS but no one’s infallible. Since Duesberg claimed the Continuum award (in 1996 for demonstrating HIV exists), there’s “a huge problem.” Gene states he did his own literature search and is “not repeating Perthian talking points” (though I would note his views appear to be essentially identical to those). He asserts that his posts on NAR demonstrate that Gallo gave false testimony to the Adelaide court in claiming to have purified HIV. Finally, Gene calls for “a cease fire.”

    (End of abstract.)

  102. Truthseeker Says:

    Good enough, Bob. So all this strikes you as making some meaningful sense and moving us toward the current NAR goal of a Pervian statement as to the alternative construction of reality resulting from the above statements? if so we hope you are right but it is hard to see it coming forth. We would have expected, for example, that if there was some error or misformulation, or incompleteness in the paragraph we drafted, that the current Pervian representative on this board, Major General Nick Naylor, would have provided same. That was the point. But nothing. Very disappointing.

    Maybe we shall try and update it ourselves, since we would like to mention microvesicles, and also the consistent genetic structure for which there is no explanation offered in the Pervian alternate reality that we know of.

    Also, given the Major General’s comment point number five about Gallo testimony on purifying HIV being false, we await instructions as to what to say he did do if he failed. Was it simply a false claim, or a false interpretation of what he did? Did he do a valid purification later, or never? Has anyone done a valid purification? One assumes that the Pervian answer is no, this stuff has never been purified, and so the PCR tests for it have never been validated. GIGO (garbage in garbage out) as it were.

    One way or another, NAR will nail down the Pervian alternate reality before proceeding with a comparison with the best mainstream literature on the topic.

    Planet Perth or die is our new motto.

  103. Robert Houston Says:

    “Good enough, Bob. So all this strikes you as making some meaningful sense and moving us toward the current NAR goal of a Pervian statement as to the alternative construction of reality resulting from the above statements?”

    No, Truthseeker, I wasn’t claiming that Gen. Naylor’s recent statement was “moving us toward the current NAR goal…” or any other rainbowed treasure. It seemed cooperative, however, to the extent that it was written in standard English rather than Perthenian and lacked the hasty half sentences, idiosyncratic shorthand, and obfuscations that we too often read from the Naylor-sayer.

    The Perthlings have shown a real difficulty in answering plain questions. The Gene-ral either evades them or deprecates the questioner for not being au courant concerning some obscurity (You ignorant Earthlings, to know so little about viral 70S RNA dimer formation! Tut, tut!). MacDonald is even less subtle: to any question his typical response is to ridicule the questioner for being so outre as to even ask, or to bother asking again if inadequately answered. Then we have to suffer his pretentious analysis (e.g., It’s a pattern! 1. A question is asked. 2. The question is asked again. Snicker, snicker! — MacD.).

    Maybe it’s time to post a missive at planet Perth.

  104. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. Houston,

    You, as the momentarily most treasured contributor here out of the 2 of us who are left on this the final frontier of name calling, must realize that lack of subtlety is a virtue highly valued by the record short attention span host cell. In fact, his scientific material entry attachment spikes generally have a half-life that makes the HIV non-infectious clone reference standard look like Methusela.

    Unfortunately your exegesis of Mr. Naylor’s comments, which seem to fascinate you far beyond any rational geocentric stargazing, is no closer to the target than your helpless “analysis” of my MO:

    The message says he can’t approve the Truthseeker summary of the Perth rationale for doubting HIV but doesn’t specify any error.

    Mr. name caller, this of course implies what you say, but the sentiment Mr. Naylor was conveying in his comment was that the host cell’s, and indeed the name caller’s own, caricature of what the Perth Group have argued is so ridiculously ignorant and distorted that even Mr. Naylor now realizes there are no grounds on which to debate or attempt to explain.
    Mr. Naylor has further perceived the truth of what I told him long ago that the reason why such notables as Chris Noble and Dale are no longer exposing the host cell’s limitations on these pages is because they have discovered that, if only left to his own devices, Mr. TS is doing a much better job of making Duesberg look bad than they could ever aspire to themselves. Now read again Mr. exegete:

    TS, TS, TS …OK, you did your best. Need I point out that your best is the logical equivalent of Noble, Dale, etc which can easily be confirmed by bothering to read their never-ending demands for an “alternative” and caricatures of opponents at the Aetiology debates (Nick Naylor)

  105. Robert Houston Says:

    Mr. MacDonald is most gracious in bestowing on me the exalted status of “the momentarily most treasured contributer here out of the 2 of us who are left…” He can’t seem to control his slurring speech, however, insofar as it issues compulsive slurs against the sainted host of this blog, who has labored to provide this forum for seekers of truth though unpaid and rarely thanked for these noble efforts.

    If Mr. MacDonald or Nick Naylor believe that something written here about their Pertherted views is “ignorant and distorted” then they should provide a correction or substitute. Despite Truthseeker’s requests, necessarily repeated for lack of suitable response, such has not been forthcoming. It’s no answer to say that others (“Chris and Dale”) also asked for explanations.

    Truthseeker has posed a reasonable challenge: “If you really believe the Pervians are right to complain that we are not dealing with a virus of a consistent genetic structure which behaves like a retrovirus and which is reliably cloned, infects and multiplies in culture and in vivo its trail is detected in humans by a test for the antibodies it generates, then say so and tell us what you think is really going on. If you can’t, say why not.

    The only response to this and previous such requests to “tell us what you think is really going on” have been slurs and insults from MacD and PerthNick. In fact, their planetary leaders, Empress Eleni and Prince Valendar, seem likewise unable to explain how all of Earth’s virology labs can come up with precise findings about a virus they contend is an illusion or misinterpretation.

    Of course, the real reason for this absence is that there is no alternate explanation: on this issue Perthian science is bankrupt. All their followers can do is to repeat the Perth critiques of 1983-1984 experiments, as Mr. Naylor dutifully does, and then answer any and all questions with patronizing put-downs.

  106. Truthseeker Says:

    Well said, Robert. We are fortunate to have someone here who supports the aim of the blog, which is to clear up confusion on the science of questioned paradigms, rather than the goal of some others here, which appears to be to take the stage without anything to say on the science that advances the discussion in any productive way, but merely to call attention to themselves by ragging the host.

    MacD, congratulations on entering an even more intellectually challenged post than usual, scientifically speaking, which advances the discussion not one iota, but simply repeats your one trick pony act of lobbing ineffectual potshots at those who undermine your hobby horse view that the Pervians have it, which view is equally without force for precisely the same reason – you never have anything to offer but air gun pellet attacks on views and people who hold them without ever offering a substitute set of views of any substance whatsoever.

    If you do rather astonishingly lack any resources of reference or understanding to improve the rough draft which we gave you and render it less “ridiculous ignorant and distorted” then kindly be quiet, since the discussion is better without your brilliant but rather endless wheel spinning riffs on the “me good thinker – you bad thinker” static you like to serve up so expertly which obscures the already vanishing possibility that there may be something somewhere in the Pervian view, some revelatory point hidden behind the incapacities of its champions to make it clear to others over twenty years of discussion.

    Let’s remember that this failure has allowed spoilers such as Noble (with whom you seem to have much in common, even though he is leaden footed and witless compared with your high octane pirhouettes, in that he has nothing constructive to offer either in his endless objections to dissent) to use it as cannon fodder, and has ended up in the Adelaide court making the other dissenters in HIV∫AIDS look like fools in public by association, when in fact we all agree that from Duesberg on down they are the clear thinkers and the HIV∫AIDS promoters are the fools currently mistaken for wise men.

    The objective here is to rescue the situation by finding something worthwhile in the Pervian critique on the particular issue which was used against them (on many other points they have made indisputable contributions), that is to say, the claim that HIV as such does not exist. If that is their claim. Your performance is so evasive in this regard that it suggests that perhaps you have their position wrong, and that rather than allege the Virus doesn’t actually exist, what they are saying may be more along the lines of stating that it has never been proven to exist in the human body and thus never the proven cause of tests registering positive for HIV antibodies, which tests of course react to so many other things.

    However, your response to that suggestion so far is as lacking as ever, and you prefer to block progress with schoolboy strictures aimed at the long suffering but still noble and far seeing host. This is a great pity. since we have profound respect for the performance of your brain when it is in gear, which seems so seldom these days that we worry you have fallen under the influence of certain recreational pursuits notoriously available in Thailand.

    We hope not.

  107. MacDonald Says:

    My dearest noble gentlemanly name callers, I’m terribly sorry you feel that I’ve once more derailed all your fine science just as you were really beginning to advance, however, the point remains ever the same: why ask me or anybody else to endlessly paraphrase the Perth Group’s views – specifically the Perth Groups’ views, Mr. Houston, forced by your name calling – only to complain that we are merely paraphrasing the Perth Group, like so:

    All their followers can do is to repeat the Perth critiques of 1983-1984 experiments, as Mr. Naylor dutifully does

    If this is true, why the incessant complaints that you have received no answers as to what the Perth Group’s views are? Mr. Houston, did you not write following to authenticate the Layne et al molecular clone?

    The 1992 paper by Layne et al., which Truthseeker kindly reproduced in part above, gave the citation for the origin and characteristics (reference standard) of the moleclular clone of HIV (HIV-1HXB3) that was was used in their study. The information was provided by Robert Gallo’s group in Science, Dec. 7, 1984

    So what’s up with complaining about Mr. Naylor “repeating the critiques of the 1983-1984 papers”, while ignoring all other points that have been put to you, such as these, neither of which are from the Perth Group:

    Surprised as some of us may be at learning that HIV is dubbed a quasispecies and may replicate near error threshold, that surprise hardly constitutes a scientific argument. So again, would Mr. name caller care to show us by comparison with other highly mutable RNA viruses that the in the Layne et al paper observed “HIV”-related phenomena are not quite ordinary in the world of virology? And again, would he care to explain how a “virtually uninfectious” entity survives as an exogenous virus? That is, would he care to come to Duesberg’s aid and show how the virtually uninfectious entity survives as a non-horizontally transmissible endemic virus in the wild with a perinatal transmission rate well below 50%?

    What’s the matter, Mr. name caller, Perth got your tongue?

    If you feel we are not as cooperative as you deserve by virtue of the fine examples you’ve set, why don’t YOU go to any of the dozens of original texts for what you seek and deliver an an original critique of the points made?
    I’ve made no secret of the fact that I have not found anything to be missing from the Perth Group’s account other than the virus, so if you think otherwise, why don’t you ask them or Neville Hodgkinson or David Crowe or Rebecca Culshaw or Rodney Richards or any one of the many others with far better journalistic and scientific qualifications than anyone here all implicated by your name calling?

  108. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, you have been requested not to try to contribute to this topic any further if you are incapable of correcting the draft we gave you – which you labeled “ridiculous ignorant and distorted” – of the alternative reality held in mind by you when contemplating the non-existence of HIV, which you are so grateful to the Pervian duo for pointing out.

    Since you once again prove incapable of rendering any account along these lines, please cease blathering. You are seriously interfering with this blog’s purpose. You can’t or won’t give us any idea as to what you think is happening if all the evidence for the existence of HIV is collected and yet you still deny its existence. It is a very simple matter. HIV is cloned from human blood, used to infect cultures of white blood cells, retrieved from that culture, reproduces in other culture, and essentially maintains its genetic integrity and sequence, given the unreliability of reverse transcriptase action. To thousands of people in labs around the world this is taken to mean it exists, but you deny it. Then you are reasonably asked to account for the evidence in whatever alternative way you wish to claim.

    You cannot do it, so shut up, at least till we post a proper analysis of the complete anti-Pervian argument, when you will if you object still have to fill the same simple demand. It would be amusing to see how many times you avoid the pin if you weren’t interfering with the scientific discussion, but you are doing that, and furthermore, your stream of ineffectual insults and put downs, which are your only tools it appears, merely bring this blog into disrepute. From now on they will be subjected to filtering by the Webpolitesse software, which is set to excise ruthlessly all such verbal disturbance of the peace here, however cleverly it is phrased.

    We have already proved the point you keep demonstrating with every post – you have no idea how to account for the evidence with an alternative interpretation. If HIV doesn’t exist as such, you have no idea why all this work can be done. There is no alternative explanation. Enough said.

  109. MacDonald Says:

    My dearest blog host cell,

    I have no doubt I’m interfering witht the real purpose of this blog, to the point that I’m now being called a denialist. I admire your scientific inference overriding the authority of all those credentialed people I have just mentioned by concluding that if I cannot come up with an “alternative” explanation then there is none. I’m obviously quite flattered by that, but others may object.

    In view of this overestimation of my humble self, it’s still stranger that you keep thinking the ultimate unpassable test that would conclusively reveal me as a fraud would be to quote the Perth Group at you. But very well, although I didn’t call your summary of Perth’s argument distorted and ridiculous directly, but merely offered you Mr. Naylor’s opinion, I think I may be able to answer for both him and the Perth Group, since cut and paste is no further beyond me than it is you I imagine:

    Your different summaries of the Perth Group’s argument are confused and inconsistent, but I’ll go by your latest and best according to yourself.

    1. The supposed Virus is nothing that is found in the human bloodstream, for there only bits and pieces of long resident parts of “HIV” have ever been detected, floating around off the genome like odd spare parts,

    Reasonably correct. The Perth Group do not claim the bits and pieces are necessarily “long resident parts” , although their guess is there may well be genomic retro-components
    contributing to the observed phenomena as well as the “HIV” genome.

    2. and even though they have been artificially stuck together in the labs of
    miscreant HIV researchers, just as Dr Frankenstein assembled his child loving monster, into an Viruslike Assembly

    The bits and pieces are most definitely not stuck together in Frankensteinian manner. This is distortion and ridiculous to the extreme. It is hard to even know what you are referring to. As far as the Perth Group and where the so called HIV genome comes from, expression of endogenous retroelements under stress, not normally present have been suggested, along with recombination, rearrangement and spontaneous (“spontaneous” meaning here precisely that scientists do not sit like Frankenstein and assemble anything) assembly events.

    3. which then manages somehow to infect cells and somehow be reproduced when those cells multiply, and somehow maintain its genomic nature through all this excitement,

    Again one doesn’t know here to begin. Why wouldn’t whatever it is manage to “infect”? You’re the one who just proved with Layne et al. that the infectious clone is non-infectious even in vitro no? and why wouldn’t it manage to maintain its genomic nature in the cloning process? What on earth do you mean by any of what you’re saying?

    The Perth Group replies to Duesberg who can at least formulate statements that have a recognizable meaning:

    In our Continuum answer to Peter in section 7 we carefully analysed the
    evidence in the above papers cited by Peter and found there is definitely no
    proof for (i) (the only one relevant to the existence of a retrovirus) and
    (ii). It would be wasteful to repeat this here. They may well have
    achieved replication of some DNA but given the methods they have used they
    could have obtained the same results with any DNA, complete or “not
    complete”, (the smaller the better), viral or non-viral. Therefore, if the
    sole proof that the DNA which Peter refers to was infectious and of
    retroviral origin rests on its cellular uptake and replication, then all DNA
    must be infectious and of retroviral origin.

    Here a response to Robin Weiss:

    “When the complete set of genes is re‑introduced into healthy human cells in culture, the cells produce HIV particles”. (Weiss)

    In the vast HIV literature there is not one paper with such evidence. (Perth)

    4. this is a Clone, a Chimera, not a virus, and certainly not The Virus said to infect humans and kill them, in whom it is not reliably detected by tests which after all have never been validated even by a Clone, or if by a Clone then certainly not by a Virus found in humans

    More imprecision heaped on repeated ignorance: The Perth Group has never said it’s not a virus, not even that it’s not “The Virus”, only that neither have been proven, although they think it possible that HIV is an endogenous retroelement corresponding to what’s called a “retrovirus”. If so, it’s of course found in humans, just like the resurrected Phoenix retrovirus.

    And persisting, even for the sake of argument, that a clone of some RNA taken from the 1.16g/m band vouches for the identity of the orginal is breathtakingly moronic.

    5. and to Heck with your Cloning, Infectious, Multiplying Virus, you are seeing things, suckers, just like you see SARS, or the Bird Flu, call in Derren Brown and he will demonstrate.

    Rhetorical flourish as devoid of sense as the rest of your best effort summary.

  110. Robert Houston Says:

    So what’s going on here? Please recall that TS merely set up a tentative summary of the Perthian alternate view for the Perthnicks to revise or amend. Yet it seems at some points as if MacD is arguing not so much against TS but against the Perth view itself.

    What TS was pursuing is Perth’s alternate view of reality – how to explain the general phenomenon of HIV identification in labs round the world? So what is being misidentified as HIV? Take your pick: microvesicles (but these lack an internal structure and are noninfectious), endogenous retroviruses (but these have different genetic sequences and are noninfectious), body proteins of similar molecular weight (they’re not antigenic and can’t infect). How about moonbeams?

    So MacD accepts TS’s point 1. He might revise point 2, by substituting the word “artefactually” for “artificially,” to show that the rearrangement of parts is not intentional.

    For point 3, in which TS suggests that the lab’s viruslike entity infects and reproduces, MacD becomes upset, but why? “What on Earth do you mean?” he asks. It’s pretty plain what is meant: some of the the virus particles can infect cells.

    MacD also seems to knock the Perth group’s long insistence on centrifugal purification. He writes: “that a clone of some RNA taken from the 1.16g/m [sic] band vouches for the identity of the orginal is breathtakingly moronic.” Yet the Perth position has been that’s how to purify a retrovirus. Here’s what the Perth leaders say:

    Retroviral particles also share a physical property of concentrating (banding) at a density of 1.16 gm/ml when centrifuged at high speeds in sucrose density gradients, a fact long used in their purification.

    It’s true that the Perthians often use the formulation that HIV’s existence hasn’t been proved. They’ve explained,

    “There were two reasons for this: I. To facilitate publication; II. To avoid a split in the group…” (The Last Debate, Reappraising AIDS, Dec. 1999).

  111. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, the quality of your contribution is not such as one is roused from the midsummer torpor of an August heatwave in New York City, certainly not to make the changes you seem to want to make at last in the draft you were kindly provided here in the suspicion now rather confirmed that you were incapable of doing it yourself. The fact you attack the position of the Pervians you adore is amusing but still not incentive enough to move from one’s deckchair where batting passing mosquitoes of a more natural order takes all of one’s energy not devoted to sipping one’s gin and tonic.

    Either make the changes yourself and produce your own version of the Pervian scheme for us or cease posting on this blog, except in the unlikely contingency you have some new data or idea to offer, since your efforts at disentangling the mental knots you have made of fairly simple ideas are too unsuccessful even when the opportunity is granted repeatedly and with great patience for you to try on your own behalf.

    “Rhetorical flourish as devoid of sense as the rest of your best effort summary” indeed. You are speaking to the mirror. Have you really still not got the message that this “imprecision heaped on repeated ignorance” is offered for your amending if you object to it? Or are you just incapable of reformulating it to your satisfaction?

    One thing the Pervians do not need is a champion who cannot get his own ideas in order even when offered the mike. They have enough trouble making sense of it themselves. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that this laughable position of theirs – and indeed they certainly have let it be taken that they challenge the very existence of the Virus, whether you think “unproven” means this or not – has never won any space in any peer reviewed journal in any paper from them or anybody else. It is just too silly.

  112. MacDonald Says:

    I’m pleased to see that Mr. Houston at least seems to want to engage in a normal fashion on some of the issues, so I’m relieved to leave the host cell to its random flailings and attempt to return Mr. Houston’s favour:

    So what is being misidentified as HIV? Take your pick: microvesicles (but these lack an internal structure and are noninfectious), endogenous retroviruses (but these have different genetic sequences and are noninfectious), body proteins of similar molecular weight (they’re not antigenic and can’t infect). How about moonbeams?

    This point is well taken, and it would in my opinion be a potentially educational exercise to debate critically the pros and cons of different cellular candidates for the observed phenomena. However, such a debate would necessarily have to take place in good faith, and this is not possible here since NAR is a gatekeeper.

    ((Hellooooo…You have already been asked to do precisely that, MacDonald, although you still seem to be unaware of it; and the only gatekeeping procedure at NAR is to bar time wasting vacuity, pretension, irritating insults to the host or other posters, and deafness to the instructions posted or aim asserted by the blog host, none of which is likely to apply to you, surely? – Ed.))

    For point 3, in which TS suggests that the lab’s viruslike entity infects and reproduces, MacD becomes upset, but why? “What on Earth do you mean?” he asks. It’s pretty plain what is meant: some of the the virus particles can infect cells.

    The Perth Group does not accept that the existence of infectious HIV particles, or even infectious clones, has been demonstrated. Mr. Houston, TS uses such expressions as “virus like assembly which somehow manages to infect”. That is neither here nor there. I did my best to cover the possible meanings by offering following quote in answer to “virus like” and “somehow infect”

    They may well have achieved replication of some DNA but given the methods they have used they could have obtained the same results with any DNA, complete or “not complete”, (the smaller the better), viral or non-viral. Therefore, if the sole proof that the DNA which Peter refers to was infectious and of retroviral origin rests on its cellular uptake and replication, then all DNA must be infectious and of retroviral origin.

    ((if this is what you believe, MacDonald – that random DNA is all that has been taken up and replicated in cell culture – then incorporate it in the statement of alternate reality you have been asked for for the last week. – Ed.))

    ———————————————————-

    MacD also seems to knock the Perth group’s long insistence on centrifugal purification. He writes: “that a clone of some RNA taken from the 1.16g/m [sic] band vouches for the identity of the orginal is breathtakingly moronic.

    That is only seeming, Mr Houston; my point was not about purification technique. I’ll rephrase: A clone of some RNA taken from the 1.16g/m band cannot be proof that the original RNA came from a novel exogenous retroviral particle. This is indeed the crux of the molecular clone matter for Perth as far as I understand it. TS wants to go a step further and make the clone itself the reference standard. To make a copy the reference standard for the original does not even make sense in Thailand , the land of copyright infringement.

    ((You are truly NAR illiterate, MacDonald, if you cannot take the point which has been repeated so often here for the last week that the blog host stated what he said was a template for you to adjust or complete as a description of your Pervian alternate reality, since you and Nick seemed incapable of drafting this yourselves. Change the template to what you imagine it should be, please.- Ed.))

    It’s true that the Perthians often use the formulation that HIV’s existence hasn’t been proved. They’ve explained,

    “There were two reasons for this: I. To facilitate publication; II. To avoid a split in the group…” (The Last Debate, Reappraising AIDS, Dec. 1999).

    The Perth Group “chose to let the facts speak for themselves without making pronouncements such as HIV doesn’t exist”. However, Duesberg, by his attacks, forced them to openly defend the position that HIV has not been proven to exist.

    ((It is this kind of slippery apologia which led us to demand from YOU in the first place what YOUR idea of alternate Pervian reality was, MacDonald, but so far in vain. As we asked you in the last post, do this or simply admit that you cannot, which is fair enough if that is the case. Is this the situation – that you don’t have an alternative explanation for the standard interpretation you criticize as unproven?- Ed.))

  113. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, your response shows genius at not being able to wholly understand the very simple thing we asked you to do – state what your idea of reality is if your criticism of the standard view vs the Pervian is accepted as a premise. But since it takes baby steps toward that goal we thank you for your effort, at least.

    It being a heatwave in New York we must advise you however that any further posting will be erased immediately if it contains the slightest insult to the host or anybody else, since the NAR Impolitesse software has been changed to maximum setting on that parameter, which filter includes the host of course.

    ((This post in its original form was tagged by the NAR Impolitesse software as a) insufficiently scientific, b) not meeting the standards of imperturbable sang froid for which this blog is famous, and c) needlessly offensive to another poster. All content has been automatically erased as distracting and irrelevant except for the portions in bold which have tested valid. Change now effected. – Ed.))

  114. MacDonald Says:

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed that this laughable position of theirs – and indeed they certainly have let it be taken that they challenge the very existence of the Virus, whether you think “unproven” means this or not – has never won any space in any peer reviewed journal in any paper from them or anybody else. It is just too silly.

    What’s not only silly but a Fing disgrace, even for this ignorant blog, is that you keep parroting that libelous lie with the complicity of your science editor, Robert Houston. Although their publishing record is obviously not as distinguished as Duesberg’s, The Perth Group has published several challenges to the proof of the existence of the virus in peer-reviewed papers like “Genetica” (which was good enough for Duesberg on occasion) and “Medical Hypotheses”, which while not very prominent has the following editorial policy:

    Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors’ responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a ‘chooser’, not a ‘changer’: choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted

    Get that? “COHERENT AND CLEARLY EXPRESSED”. But I guess you’re a better judge of that than the peer reviewers of “Medical Hypotheses”, that’s why you never made it through

    A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis

    authored by the laughable denialists

    Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,*, Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso, Sam Mhlongo, Todd Miller, Andrew Maniotis, Christian Fialah

    Since I don’t want to tax you beyond capacity by requiring you to read all the way through it, here are the last words of the abstract:

    We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV.

    While, for reasons already explained by the Perth Group, other papers do not center exclusively on virus isolation/proof of existence, a paper in BIO/TECHNOLOGY, a publication that might be familiar to some, contains following words in the summary which somehow must have slipped the peer reviewers’ attention: ” no gold standard has been used and may not even exist“. And again in the conclusion “It is axiomatic that the use of antibody tests must be verified against a gold standard. The presently available data fail to provide such a gold standard”. (“Is A Positive Western Blot Proof Of HIV Infection?”)

    I trust you do know what a gold standard is? A hint: they ain’t talking about the clone.

    The Genetica papers, “Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship” and “A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-CELL-AIDS hypothesis” do not center on the existential issue and yet they contains several sections pertaining to viral isolation leading to conclusions which must also somehow have slipped by the sleepy dogs at the gate.

    But we all know the dogs on NAR are wide awake, so I thoroughly expect censorship rather than the humble, red-eared, limp-tailed apologies any true gentleman would trip over himself to offer the Perth Group were he in your kennel.

  115. Robert Houston Says:

    Genetica 95: 5-24, 1995

    The Perth Group has published several challenges to the proof of the existence of the virus in peer-reviewed papers [in journals] like ‘Genetica’ (which was good enough for Duesberg on occasion) and ‘Medical Hypotheses’…”

    This statement by Mr. MacDonald is erroneous. None of the three papers he cites was devoted to the issue of “the existence of the virus.” Although they had a few lines relevant to the topic, it was not the central focus and was not an issue dealt with comprehensively.

    The 2004 paper in Medical Hypotheses 63:597-601 (A critique of the Montagnier evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis) appeared to be an historical perspective on experiments reported in 1983. It suggests that Montagnier’s group at that time did not adequately isolate HIV. Completely ignored was the subsequent year – and even the ensuing 20 years – when the existence of HIV as a unique exogenous retrovirus was confirmed in a series of experiments by Gallo’s group at NIH, Jay Levy’s group at UCSF, and Robin Weiss in England. The paper by the Perth Group, being restricted to the 1983 Montagnier experiments and ignoring most of the world’s corroborative evidence, was thus presented not as a challenge to the existence HIV but merely as a critique of the earliest experiments.

    The 1995 Genetica paper cited by Mr. MacDonald was also not about the existence of HIV; it was focused on the relationship of HIV to AIDS. The Perth Group wrote, “Neither PCR nor ‘HIV isolation’ have ever been used to demonstrate a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS.” It’s a valuable paper, by the way, but not for the issue MacD specifies, which is not even mentioned in the abstract:

    A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HIV-T4-CELL-AIDS HYPOTHESIS

    Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,1 Valendar F.Turner,2 John M. Papadimitriou,3 David Causer,1 Bruce Hedland-Thomas,1 & Barry Page1

    Abstract

    The data generally accepted as proving the HIV theory of AIDS, HIV cytopathy, destruction of T4 lymphocytes, and the relationsip between T4 cells, HIV and the acquired immune deficiency clinical syndrome are critically evaluated. It is concluded these data do not prove that HIV preferentially destroys T4 cells or has any cytopathic effects, neither do they demonstrate that T4 cells are preferentially destroyed in AIDS patients, or that T4 cell destruction and HIV are either necessary or sufficient prerequisites for the development of the clinical syndrome.

    The other Genetica paper mentioned by Mr. MacDonald is about Haemophila and AIDS, and does not significantly deal with the issue of HIV’s existence.

    By the way, I have no formal position with NAR and am not a “science editor” there or elsewhere.

  116. MacDonald Says:

    Mr Houston,

    Thank you for your contribution. But as it adds zero to my own characterization of the papers, namely that most of them do not center on the isolation issue, for the very reasons brought up in the quote you gave yourself:

    It’s true that the Perthians often use the formulation that HIV’s existence hasn’t been proved. They’ve explained,

    “There were two reasons for this: I. To facilitate publication; II. To avoid a split in the group…” (The Last Debate, Reappraising AIDS, Dec. 1999).

    and to which I provided the correct context here:

    The Perth Group “chose to let the facts speak for themselves without making pronouncements such as HIV doesn’t exist”. However, Duesberg, by his attacks, forced them to openly defend the position that HIV has not been proven to exist.

    I see no other reason for your comment and irrelevant quotations from the abstracts, that merely show that the contents of the papers are (also) consistent with the title, which I had already given, than a pitiful attempt at showing TS the less honorable way out of his predicament. May I remind you that the challenge was not to find passages in the papers that are not about viral isolation/existence. TS worded it thus:

    …this laughable position of theirs [has] never won any space in any peer reviewed journal in any paper from them or anybody else…

    Fact is the Perth Group’s analyses of the isolation issues are presented at length, and the familiar conclusions clearly drawn in several papers that have passed peer review.

    Your point that the challenge to the isolation/proof of existence of HIV in the “Medical Analyses” paper is not inclusive of all purported evidence is even more irrelevant. I can only assume you mention it,

    1) In your capacity as gatekeeper

    2) To distract from the fact that not only is the evidence for isolation, both Gallo’s and Montagnier’s, being treated of at length, and found wanting, in several peer reviewed papers, in this particular case it was the specific subject, center and focus of the paper, leaving, one would have thought, no room whatsoever to weasel out of the charge that the Perth Group is being slandered here on grounds of bias and ignorance. That is, you mention it in your capacity as unabashed if not official NAR apologist.

  117. MacDonald Says:

    PS.

    The paper by the Perth Group, being restricted to the 1983 Montagnier experiments and ignoring most of the world’s corroborative evidence, was thus presented not as a challenge to the existence HIV but merely as a critique of the earliest experiments.

    The circumstance that Mr. Houston can write that this paper is not a challenge to the proof of the existence of the virus, shows an ignorance only rivalled by NAR’s host of the Perth Group’s understanding of the history of that ill-fated virus as it made its way from Montagnier’s lab to those of Gallo, Weiss etc.

    Anybody with a functioning brain would have asked himself what would the purpose of such an “historic overview”, seemingly ignoring all other evidence for the real presence of the virus, be in the view of the authors if not a suggestion that the subsequent evidence is not essentially different from or more conclusive than that which Montagnier presented.

  118. MacDonald Says:

    Ah, now I understand! The authors, not being French, wrote this critique of Montagnier so that the Gallo could get full credit for isolation and thereby discovery of HIV. My apologies to Mr. Houston for not having grasped this obvious motivation sooner.

  119. Truthseeker Says:

    Your posts will be removed shortly, MacDonald, since they flout the NAR edict that no insults will be allowed in this space which is reserved for intelligent and productive discourse. You will be granted a few hours to repost them without the insults, just in case you didn’t keep a copy. By the way, Robert Houstom writes his own posts independently without any consultation or instructions from NAR host or staff, presumably since evidently being well read in the literature of the field and capable of writing a sentence with a subject, verb and object in that order he is not in any need of such consultation, unlike others here who have notoriously been in great need of obtaining guidance and motivation from south of the US border under the whip of the Pancho Villa of Cuernavaca, now unfortunately incapacitated but we hope not for ever.

    We haven’t read your posts very carefully since by their very nature as exemplified by their including ad hominem and ad blogginem insults of the usual inaccuracy their reasoning and evidence must be as weak as the sentence structure exemplified by the very first example, where at least one subject is missing. We wonder if you ever read over what you write. Are you even aware that the Perthian position referred to as “laughable” was the very well conveyed challenge to the very existence of the Virus, well conveyed despite your rather desperate attempts to retreat to your own Pervian position by implying that “not proven to exist” is not meant to imply “it doesn’t exist”. If your position is that it does exist, you can qdd it to the template we offered. If your position is that it doesn’t, you can add that likewise instead. All we have ever asked you to do is make up your mind and state it.

    Meanwhile, as we say, you have a few hours to repost without the insults before your originals are sent into the circular file. Much better and more useful, however, would be to state what you do believe, though your endless resistance to making this plain statement has persuaded us that you won’t because you can’t. Your grasp of the matter is apparently too weak to allow you to state what you believe. If this conclusion is incorrect, then you can prove it by doing so. But permit us to doubt that you can and will.

  120. MacDonald Says:

    The host cell has once again lost his marbles to the extent that the Southern Pancho Villa even on the worst of days would appear a model of the soberest rhyme and reason by comparison.

    It is not so much that he meets the charge that he dismisses and censors things without having read or understood them with the reply that he hasn’t read or understood what the charge was, but he dismisses it and will shortly censor it – were it only that it would be daily fare. But now he has introduced a variation over his favourite “you’re unintelligible, I’ve won”, argument, which goes “I’m unintelligible, I’ve won”:

    We haven’t read your posts very carefully since by their very nature as exemplified by their including ad hominem and ad blogginem insults of the usual inaccuracy their reasoning and evidence must be as weak as the sentence structure exemplified by the very first example, where at least one subject is missing. (I hope this is readable even if at least a couple of commas are missing)

    The host cell complains of sentence structure by directing the reader to something that’s supposedly “exemplified by the very first example”. Now if there’s an example there’s necessarily something that’s exemplified, but since the host cell’s own sentence does not point beyond this tautology to the example itself, all we can do is admire his perfection of the boomerang style of argument.

    My guess is the host cell is possibly seizing on the colloquial “(do you) Get it?” as a way of slithering out of apologizing to the Perth Group for his bias, ignorance, reading inabilities and intolerance. Gentlemanly? You decide. Personally I think he should have reached for the straw Houston handed him instead of relying on his own cleverness.

    PS, For the host cell’s ease of consumption and according to the strict stylistic rules, to be observed by all but himself obviously, that would be “Gentlemanly?” as in “(Is this) gentlemanly (conduct)”

    ((Spelling corrected by NAR Autogrammatica software eg Pancho “Vila”, “wold” be daily fare, “celverness”, etc, even though these earmarks of a slapdash style usefully indicated that the entry is not up to the usual NAR standards of accuracy, attention and scientific credibility exemplified by the poster. – Ed.))

  121. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, it is important to read posts carefully in case you raise the issue of inaccuracy where there is none, save in the muddled prefrontal cortex of the reader. There are no commas missing in what you quote, and the reference to the first sentence you wrote as an example of how your ideas are obscured by leaving out subjects of verbs stands until you demonstrate otherwise.

    Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors’ responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a ‘chooser’, not a ‘changer’: choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted

    Get that? “COHERENT AND CLEARLY EXPRESSED”. But I guess you’re a better judge of that than the peer reviewers of “Medical Hypotheses”, that’s why you never made it through

    Where does this state that the papers are subjected to peer review in the normal manner? As far as the review policy is stated in this text, it says that the editor will choose papers without changing them, and there is no mention of peers reviewing the material submitted. Apart from the fact that as Houston points out, the material you quote did not put forward the Perth suggestion that Virus does not after all exist, you seem incapable of reading your own quoted text with any more attention than your own draft post before publishing it. If you wish to confirm the point that Medical Hypotheses is peer reviewed you need to quote other text.

    Even when you draw attention to a specific phrase, you seem unaware of the irony involved in endorsing a call for “coherent and clearly expressed” ideas, when we have spent nearly two weeks trying to extract from you a “coherent and clearly expressed” formulation of your personal Pervian take on the Perthian view, which has proved as difficult as pulling teeth from an oyster.

    And can we have a coherent and clearly expressed response to this coherent and clearly expressed statement by Houston: The paper by the Perth Group, being restricted to the 1983 Montagnier experiments and ignoring most of the world’s corroborative evidence, was thus presented not as a challenge to the existence HIV but merely as a critique of the earliest experiments. Do you accept this or not? Both Gallo and Weiss found what later was named HIV in the isolate material forwarded by Montagnier from the long ago 1983 experiments being critiqued in this article and this corroboration by them and other teams of the existence of the Virus as a unique and exogenous retrovirus would have to be mentioned if their purpose was to discuss this time wasting and embarrassingly foolish obsessive lunacy in any serious way. Are you suggesting that Gallo, who criticized these experiments too in his Adelaide testimony, is also a disbeliever in HIV?

    However we congratulate you on somehow recovering from the panic that seemed to overtake you when the prospect of having this embarrassing void exposed in public loomed, shown by the fact that you actually wrote a post where the insults to others did not cause the NAR Impolitesse software to short circuit due to overload.

    Congratulations! Now perhaps in your less disturbed state you can fulfil the simple request you have evaded for two weeks, and tell us what you do believe, rather than endlessly telling us what you don’t.

    Does the Virus exist in the MacDonald Pervian view, or not?

  122. MacDonald Says:

    Mymy, the circus of self-contradiction will no end take. Now the easily manipulated shapeshifting NAR host Blob picks on “Medical Hypotheses”, just one of the magazines mentioned, because they state they try to take an unbiased approach to peer review. Geezuz!Why does the NAR Blob think I quoted that passage when I could simply have stated that MH was peer reviewed, period? Precisely to give the clever keeper at the gate an opportunity to show everybody that he defends the “normal” peer review system – that is, the same system which is corrupt when, but only when, it doesn’t allow Duesberg to publish.

    Science Guardian denies publications that do not publicly state their peer reviewers are biased towards the status quo… Excellent! Bravo o truthseeking one, better than I had hoped. Your colours are showing brighter by the minute.

    Then the usual side (step) show, the endless requests for more clarification of something that’s already been clarified in every detail:

    And can we have a coherent and clearly expressed response to this coherent and clearly expressed statement by Houston: The paper by the Perth Group, being restricted to the 1983 Montagnier experiments and ignoring most of the world’s corroborative evidence, was thus presented not as a challenge to the existence HIV but merely as a critique of the earliest experiments. Do you accept this or not?,

    Repeat-repeat-repeat, the paper was presented as a challenge to proof of the existence of the virus. And you haven’t read it, but are relying on Houston as I adviced you to.

    Since after 20 years the HIV hypothesis cannot
    explain the three phenomena for which it was put
    forward and its main predictions have not been
    fulfilled then it should be abandoned or at least
    reappraised. In our view the reappraisal should
    begin with HIV.
    (followed by a paper that shows the existence of HIV has not been proven by the team credited with discovering it.)

    …But I’m sure that still wasn’t clear enough. Nothing will be – cuz in that specific sentence it didn’t say HIV doesn’t exist, or the peer-reviewers were marxists, or the publication is not listed on the NYSE or, or, or… What is clear is that the easily manipulated host blob is but a puppet on a string since he is now simply grasping feebly at the straw handed him by Houston instead of relying on his own cleverness – just as I advised him to do.

    I now advice you to get your fat arse going and start censoring some, cuz there ain’t no mo lifelines left: the NAR so called code of honour and scientific integrity has been so thoroughly exposed for what it is that I can think of no further to add to your total disgrace.

    So Censor! since you’re too pathetic to admit, and ask forgiveness for, being an ignorant, biased coward, just like Servo said.

  123. Truthseeker Says:

    Well, the above post is so revealing of the quality of MacDonald’s understanding and thinking that we are pleased to leave it up, intact, as Exhibit #1, demonstrating why we no longer think it is worth taking this poster seriously. Apparently he is unaware that his quoting Medical Hypotheses as a peer reviewed publication and his continuing to do so reveals that he was and is still under the false impression that it is a peer reviewed publication, when in fact anyone familiar with the opinions of its editor would know that it is not.

    But in addition to this, dear MacD, the verb is “advise” not “advice”, the paper remains one which did not address the issue as its theme, your typical claim of making irrelevant comments on purpose is not believable, your inability to state what you do believe is as prominent as ever, and your rate of insult correlates precisely with your anxiety at exposing your inadequacy on all these fronts.

    Thank you MacD for this bravura demonstration, which we find utterly convincing, that you have been caught short on all these fronts, and have no alternative Pervian view on the existence or non existence of the Virus for us to consider. But please accept our congratulations for evading this admission for surely more than five hundred posts on this topic all told.

    Also thank you for the amusement afforded us all by your being cornered by your own misstatements and the degenerating level of literacy of your insulting language which makes a refreshing change from the standards maintained by every other poster.

    Medical Hypotheses a peer reviewed journal!… well done, MacD, well done. Excellent joke, given that the whole value of that estimable publication derives from its hostility towards the process as typically carried out, as even the quote you yourself gave us should have told you.

  124. Robert Houston Says:

    Medical Hypotheses is a respected professional journal for new ideas. However, according to its own website, it practices editorial review but not peer review:

    “Procedure for Publication

    Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the editors. If accepted for publication, authors will then be sent an invoice for page charges. As soon as payment is received, the paper will be processed for publication.”

    The founder and longtime editor, the late Dr. David Horrobin, was an outspoken critic of peer review. See, for example, D.F. Horrobin, The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. JAMA 263:1438-41, Mar. 9, 1990.

  125. MacDonald Says:

    Also thank you for the amusement afforded us all by your being cornered by your own misstatements and the degenerating level of literacy of your insulting language which makes a refreshing change from the standards maintained by every other poster

    No thank YOU for the amusement, since every other Commenter in this thread apart from your apologist in residence has been chased off under the exact same pretenses whenever you felt cornered – which is all the time as a quick glance down the page will show.

    You’re otherwise free to slither which way you like as long as you leave my comments up that show precisely that I DIDN’T quote Medical Hypotheses as an example of a prominent or “normally” peer reviewed journal, but as an alternative – as the quote I gave shows. We have always been in agreement on that no matter how desperately you try to pretend otherwise. But even so, to still claim the “theme” of the paper is not proof of the existence of the virus is really taking denialism to pathogenic levels It merely illustrates what I’ve already told you, that you’re a petty character out of lifelines; a coward who will do anything to avoid standing by your own words or admitting to your ignorance.

    …this laughable position of theirs [has] never won any space in any peer reviewed journal in any paper from them or anybody else…,

    Apart from that, everybody knows you’re hanging on like a leach to the non-issue of MH’s editorial policies to divert attention from the copious amounts of space devoted to the “theme” of missing proof in that and the several other Perth Group papers that you haven’t read either, which is why you’re stalling until Mr. Houston can gallop in and succour you in your distress.

    In sum, your most convincing argument is that you’ve managed to find a typo, although you still suck at punctuation. Is that because spell check doesn’t punctuate for you? Maybe your wife could help you out seeing that you’re not sharing accomodations with Mr. Houston.

  126. MacDonald Says:

    PS,

    If it’s the word “peer” in “peer review” that so tickles your gatekeeper bone, feel free to come up with a better description or simply leave it out. See what substantial difference it makes.

  127. MacDonald Says:

    Just for the record, I see now Mr. Houston came before me with a fair and neutral comment. My last comment is not a response to Mr. Houston’s comment, which needs no response.

  128. Truthseeker Says:

    1. “The Perth Group has published several challenges to the proof of the existence of the virus in peer-reviewed papers [in journals] like ‘Genetica’ (which was good enough for Duesberg on occasion) and ‘Medical Hypotheses’…” – MacD.

    2. I DIDN’T quote Medical Hypotheses as an example of a prominent or “normally” peer reviewed journal, but as an alternative – MacD.

    3. Why does the NAR Blob think I quoted that passage when I could simply have stated that MH was peer reviewed, period? MacD.

    Answer to the last question, 3., is, because you thought (see 1 and 2) MH is peer reviewed.

    MH is not peer reviewed, period.

    Nice attempt at slithering (to use one of your own uncivil words accurately at last) out of your embarrassing error, MacD, in thinking that MH was peer reviewed when it wasn’t, but the first sentence above from your earlier post gives the lie to your claim.

    Perhaps you could make a special effort to be accurate at least about your own words, my dear MacD, when participating in an exchange with other posters who deserve to have their time better used than wading through your Lightning Gonzales evasions of the steel arrows aimed at your balloon like assertions by the high powered bow of your humble host, who assures you that he had no intention of humiliating you as rapidly as you seem to be doing yourself by exposing your errors and evasions in post after post, sometimes three at a time.

    No, MacD, let’s face it, your defense of the Perthians standing by trying to claim that they have had any peer reviewed article on the theme of the existence/non existence of the Virus has now been exposed as entirely unfounded, even though it is extremely kind in motivation, and we go along with your concern, since the Perth pair no doubt are having great difficulty in showing their faces in public after the Adelaide debacle, a fate we don’t think they deserve since they have made sterling contributions to exposing the speciousness of the current paradigm, particularly in regard to the endless questionability of HIV antibody testing as any kind of guide or map of the supposed pandemic and its supposed enroachment on any remaining countries not yet sufficiently alarmed at the threat of the Virus.

    Since we can see that you are suffering from a mental confusion between this point to do with the unreliability of tests for the Virus antibody as a guide to the presence of the Virus in humans and the implied challenge from Perth to the very existence of the Virus contained in their repeated claim that its occurrence in and derivation from humans “has not been proved” even by its filtering from human blood by centrifuge or any other means and its insertion into cells in culture, its multiplication thereby and the demonstration that that cloned HIV has a consistent genome and behaves like a retrovirus, not to mention PCR results etc etc.

    We think you are confusing these two distinct points because you prove unable to say what you think the picture is, and the only reason we can imagine for this is that you haven’t thought through the implications of both in order to reconcile them in your own mind in some kind of consistent picture which you are prepared to voice in public. If you are not then we have every confidence that you will be explain what you do think about both topics separately, or at least we would have every confidence if you hadn’t already proved unwilling to state what you think all of it means in your independent Pervian view.

    This is a pity since we are sure that many here must be waiting for you to answer the question posed at the end of our last post, which is, do YOU think the Virus exists, or not? Is it all a giant mistake? And once again for the umpteenth time, if it is all a giant mistake then what do you think is really going on?

    if this isn’t a fair and neutral question, what is?

  129. MacDonald Says:

    Once again I’m amazed at your endless cowardly contortions to avoid apologizing to the Perth Group that now seem destined to go on ad infinitum,just as your never ceasing complaints that everybody who’s not as illiterate as yourself is unintelligible

    The point has long since been explained and settled it seems even to Mr. Houston’s satisfaction. But knowing that your reading skills are worse even than your punctuation I guess I’ll have to show extra patience, especially seeing that for the first time ever you’ve actually backed up your statement with a four step argument no less, which could only be an advantage:

    1. “The Perth Group has published several challenges to the proof of the existence of the virus in peer-reviewed papers [in journals] like ‘Genetica’ (which was good enough for Duesberg on occasion) and ‘Medical Hypotheses’…” – MacD.
    2. I DIDN’T quote Medical Hypotheses as an example of a prominent or “normally” peer reviewed journal, but as an alternative – MacD.
    3. Why does the NAR Blob think I quoted that passage when I could simply have stated that MH was peer reviewed, period? MacD.
    Answer to the last question, 3., is, because you thought (see 1 and 2) MH is peer reviewed. TS

    It is true that “1.” on its own could be taken as meaning that MH was peer reviewed just like, for instance, Genetica. However, the conjunction “and” can suggest dissimilarity just AS WELL AS similarity thusly:

    “The Perth Group has published both in magazines like Genetica and in magazines of another kind, like Medical Hypotheses.”

    The answer to point number 3. is precisely the opposite of your interpretation. I chose that particular qualifying quote from MH to show that there was a difference between the way the two magazines were reviewed.

    I offered point 2. in an earlier attempt to explain to you that if I had wanted to give the false impression, that MH was “normally peer reviewed”, I wouldn’t have added the qualifying quote. The term “(not) normal peer review” was your own expression, which I subsequently borrowed since I foolishly thought you’d accept your own characterization of the MH’s review process. You’ve later disowned that characterization so you could keep playing this new little game of incomprehension of yours.

    I have somewhere else called the editors of MH “peer reviewers”. which might be wrong in a narrow technical sense. I therefore devoted a PS Comment to explain, that this was for want of a better term, since these people are not simply random reviewers, soccer players or carpenters, but possess relevant qualifications although the process is not the “normal peer review”.

    I have nowhere claimed that you were not right; neither when you characterized the MH reviewing process as “not normal peer review”, nor when you changed your definition to “not peer reviewed period”. And I still do not contest the point.

    The fact that you keep recycling what you apparently consider a major victory on the same magnitude as discovering a typo adds nothing but new views of your pettiness.

    I likewise readily admit that I have no intention of taking up your reworded challenge to produce a Perth paper, peer reviewed or not, that would satisfy your new criteria that the “theme” must be the non-existence of the virus. This formulation is as protean as your definition of gentlemanly conduct or intelligibility, hence one immediately sees the futility of trying to comply with such a demand when the challenger is also the veto possessing decider in chief.

    I’ll happily answer any fair and neutral questions once the ever morphing host Blob has issued a public apology to Perth for his ignorant bias and admitted that their ideas have been given much space both in peer reviewed journals and alternatives (which I still don’t know how to define – “profesionally qualified editor reviewed”?) whose stated criteria for accepting papers include that the ideas are “coherent and clearly expressed”.

  130. MacDonald Says:

    Journals not magazines

  131. Truthseeker Says:

    Nice try at wriggling out of it, MacD, but you are pinned. You imagined that Medical Hypotheses was peer reviewed, and it is not. Point proven. and confirmed by the length of the extended waffle to escape the point.

    Bottom line, MacD, is very simple. Answer these two fair and neutral questions or acknowledge that you have no answer:

    1. Do you believe, proven or not, that the Virus HIV exists as an independent, coherent entity as a retrovirus with a consistent and reliable genetic structure that can infect cells in culture and can infect living humans?

    2. If not, why not, and what alternate reality do you currently bear in mind?

    These are not trick questions, they merely seek to establish what conclusions you have come to, if any, beyond the rote application of skepticism to almost any statement made on the topic by anyone other than the Perth duo, whose own skepticism has borne such fruit, even though it has been we currently believe well answered on this point, though we have yet to confirm this in a formal post, owing to the endless distraction afforded by your mental capers.

    The reason we seek these answers from you is because behind the blather, the smoke screen, and the uncivil style of discourse you are undoubtedly one of the greatest students of this topic ever to address it, albeit without coming to a firm conclusion, and your provisional opinion is therefore invaluable.

  132. MacDonald Says:

    Thanks for the mixed scorn-praise + the upside down accusation that I’m the one who won’t let go of the MH review policy non-issue. But I think I discern progress since you didn’t bring up any old typo issues this time.

    When you apologize to the Perth Group for your ignorant, prejudiced slander, I will answer question 1. Question 2. is another of your usual protean formulations so vague and all-inclusive that you can always claim your question has not been answered satisfactorily. Like Mr. Naylor said, the never to be fulfilled request for a specific but unspecified “alternative” to the alternative is an old and well-known Chris Noble trick.

  133. Truthseeker Says:

    MacD, this is not some investigative branch of the CIA, we are merely asking for your thinking which you represent as so well informed that all other contributors, even harmless inquirers after the truth, such as the host, are in danger of being called rude names if they so much as enquire as to the content of your fertile mind.

    The MH policy issue was simply that you claimed MH was one instance of where the Perth brigade had published an article justifying their view that HIV may not even exist, or whatever view it is they want to stand by in public on this matter, where the article was peer reviewed. But you were under a false impression, which the all knowing and far seeing blog host detected immediately, since this particular characteristic of MH is well known to him, and we enjoyed ourselves letting you swing in the breeze a trifle while you mistakenly continued with the the false assumption. Surely there was no harm in that amusement? After all, you are the one who constantly scorns and derides those who try to unearth whatever current assumptions lie behind your enthusiasm for challenging the assumptions of others.

    Apparently you wish to evade and elide and escape and otherwise avoid answering the two simple questions we posed to you, questions which you say are not formulated sufficiently well for you to answer, as far as the second one is concerned, at least. But they are open questions, ones that allow you to reformulate your actual position any way you like – if you have one. Do you have one?

    As to the claim of our having exposed the Perth Group to ignorant, prejudiced slander, you will have to tell us what the statement was that you objected to, and why it deserves such prejudicial characterization, even if it was wrong, which you will presumably demonstrate more effectively than your contradiction of the statement we made that there had been no article accepted from them by a peer reviewed journal on the vexed topic under discussion (the disputed existence/nonexistence of the Virus) here for so long, with such excitable attention from none other than yourself for the entire duration of what, months is it now?

    Your contradiction so far has proved without example, since all you can offer is passing references in articles devoted to other topics, so if that is the slander, it appears to be a proven truth, and nothing to apologize for. But perhaps you have some other examples which you overlooked, or you mean something else?

    Either way, let’s not let a minor point allow you to offer any further excuses on the two main questions you have been asked. At long last, Sir, you must come clean. Is there nothing in the hands you are holding close to your chest but low cards, or do you have an ace and a set of court cards? We await your answer with great anticipation, though we have a sinking feeling you will try to divert attention and wriggle out of the lassoo once again.

    By the Great God of Science, we hope not.

    Perhaps it would help if we formulated the questions even more simply?

    In your mind

    a) Is there a real Virus that the world has named (however misleadingly) HIV?

    b) If not, what are we dealing with when we think we are cloning, multiplying and sequencing it?

  134. Robert Houston Says:

    Those are two excellent questions, Truthseeker. I hope Mr. MacDonald won’t mind, but I’d like to suggest how the Perth Group would tend to answer.

    TS: Is there a real Virus that the world has named (however misleadingly) HIV?

    PG: Maybe in some cases, but it’s never been proven to be a unique exogenous retrovirus.

    TS: If not, what are we dealing with when we think we are cloning, multiplying and sequencing it?

    PG: Probably endogenous retroviruses, such as the C-type RNA viruses. Also, microvesicles from the cells.

    RH: I have a couple of questions. Do such microvesicles show a cylindrical internal structure as does HIV? Do C-type particles or any known ERVs have the same or similar genetic sequence as HIV?

    PG: Er, no to both, but so what? We’re only saying HIV isn’t proven.

    RH: It isn’t proven to whom?

    PG: To us!

    * * * * * * *

    Much of the recent contretemps on this thread devolved from the following statement by TS re Perth on Aug. 3rd:

    Perhaps you haven’t noticed that this laughable position of theirs – and indeed they certainly have let it be taken that they challenge the very existence of the Virus, whether you think “unproven” means this or not – has never won any space in any peer reviewed journal in any paper from them or anybody else. It is just too silly.

    There’s a one-word typo in that sentence. The phrase “in any paper” should have been “for any paper.” In other words, the Perth leaders have not devoted a paper in a peer-reviewed journal mainly to the topic of the existence of the virus. However, in several papers by them there are passages that critique early experiments involving isolation and purification of the virus and thus could be construed as relevant to the existential issue, even though the authors ignore most of the subsequent corroborative evidence for HIV’s existence.

    Earlier, TS pointed out that if the denigration of the early experiments of Montagnier for not fully isolating and purifying the virus is to be regarded as challenging its existence, then shouldn’t Gallo be said to challenge whether HIV exists since he himself, in testimony to the Adelaide court, said that his rival Montagnier had not adequately isolated the virus? Furthermore, on this basis, Montagnier himself could be considered an HIV disbeliever, since – as is well known – he once told an interviewer regarding his early experiments, “we did not purify.”

    The point is that critiquing the adequacy of certain early experiments, as the Perth Group sometimes does, is not equivalent to challenging the existence of HIV, since even the foremost HIV believers have criticized those same experiments.

  135. Truthseeker Says:

    The point is that critiquing the adequacy of certain early experiments, as the Perth Group sometimes does, is not equivalent to challenging the existence of HIV, since even the foremost HIV believers have criticized those same experiments.

    Well said, Sir, well said. Especially when the belated critique is in a 2004 paper, twenty years later, for God’s sake. (Apologies to MacD for the typo “in”).

    Let’s be clear. We have a Medical Hypotheses 2004 paper by the incredible implausible Perth millstones dealing ONLY with the 1983 Montagnier experiments, a paper which doesn’t mention the work of Gallo, Weiss and Levy that followed in 1984 and 1985 and which was corroborated later in labs around the world, including hundreds of electron micrograph photos where you can see the structure of the retrovirus budding copiously from cells, work which cleared up the flaws acknowledged by the original researcher Montagnier himself in the July 1997 video interview with Djamel Tahi published in 1998 in Continuum (5:30-34, 1998) (“we did not purify”) and which were scorned by Gallo in Adelaide.

    In 2004!

    At least the first half deals well with the candidacy of HIV as the (non) cause of AIDS. Let’s credit the Perth duo where they deserve it for raising interesting questions and pointing out major discrepancies in the cracked walls of fortress HIV∫AIDS. It is just a very great pity that they also stick to this absurd, self discrediting theme which stains the good science of the dissent by association.

    They light the fuse of this cannon with it targeted backwards at the generals’ tent of the army of dissenters they are trying to lead, with the enthusiastic support of fans and even major players who should know better. Even if there was something to it, it would be better to set it aside, as the Adelaide debacle showed.

  136. MacDonald Says:

    There’s a one-word typo in that sentence. The phrase “in any paper” should have been “for any paper,

    Mr. NAR apologist, are you not aware of the standards of this blog?! Are you ignorant of the fact that a single-letter typo is more than sufficent reason to dismiss an entire line of argument?

    Perhaps the host cell Blob perpetrator of that meaning changing one-word typo would care to apologize profusely to his readers and ask forgiveness in person of the Perth Group for that unforgivable fatal mistake, once he is done swooning over the cleverness of your latest analysis? It IS in order considering the grave nature of the mistake.

    That aside, I appreciate your attempt at furthering the debate, although it is clear that you have assumed the role of Sean Hannity, and I’ve been awarded the role of the token accused liberal on the show, whose appointed task is only to defend, never to conduct the interview himself. Anyway, I hope you don’t mind if I cut through the bull and ask with reference to this,

    RH: I have a couple of questions. Do such microvesicles show a cylindrical internal structure as does HIV? Do C-type particles or any known ERVs have the same or similar genetic sequence as HIV?

    1. When you say “internal cylindrical structure”, are you refering to the conical centre seen in the EMs or something else? I shall attempt to answer as soon as I’m sure we’re both talking about the same thing.

    2. How does possessing a genetic sequence different from other entities prove that the entity in question is a novel exogenous retrovirus?

  137. Truthseeker Says:

    Mr. NAR apologist, are you not aware of the standards of this blog?! Are you ignorant of the fact that a single-letter typo is more than sufficent reason to dismiss an entire line of argument?

    Dear Mr MacD, we did apologize, which you will find if you would like to check our last post, which you apparently didn’t read accurately, thus the apology seems somewhat irrelevant, since we always feel we have to assume you don’t read carefully anyway, and in this case seem entirely proved right.

    Instead we always assume that you MacD use your enormous brainpower to get the general sense of what is written so expertly by the host, and if in this case you assumed that we were referring to bits and pieces of larger papers, rather than whole papers, and continued to think that through innumerable following posts, where the thing was stated very clearly, then sir, you are not what we thought, a very fine and able mind, but instead, a fine and able mind reduced to the operating level of a donkey by inattention, and given the number of times you accuse us of inattention, we also feel confirmed in this estimation by the knowledge that very clever people are usually narcissists and one chief characteristic of narcissists is that they reliably list their own faults in accusing others, perhaps since they are so familiar with them, though perhaps you have some other reason.

    Certainly seems absurd that you now claim to have founded your response on a typo which had nothing to do with your mistake in imagining that MH was a peer reviewed publication. Is this a diversionary tactic? Have you not now recognized at long last that the issue is now settled, and the emptiness of the Perth objections to the “never proved” existence of the Virus is now publicly recognized by all here and has been nailed to the bulletin board like Luther’s proclamation to the church door?

    Perhaps you are waiting for our long heralded post? So many questions, so few answers – from you.

    I’ve been awarded the role of the token accused liberal on the show, whose appointed task is only to defend, never to conduct the interview himself.

    Role of token liberal? No sir, MacD, you are merely accused of nothing more than being a fine and able mind reduced to the operating level of an empty head by virtue of being bereft of any idea at all as to what you would substitute for an explanation of what is going on once you have finished listing the aspects and interpretations you don’t accept, only because you have found a question you need to ask, not even a contradiction. Now we have but two more questions!

    In other words, all you have are questions, and no answers, and your entire understanding consists of questions. Perhaps you are taking after the classical example of Socrates, which is certainly a fine one to follow. But it is very disappointing to many here, we are sure, ourselves included, that all you have to offer is…nothing. What one may ask is the point of having such a superior mind and perfect understanding of the fundamental scientific issue we are discussing and not being able even to suggest an answer to the enigma at the core of the heart of the mystery that we have been discussing so long?

    This seems almost as much a cheat as reaching the end of the Harry Potter series and not being told what happened in the end. You have left us all hanging. We demand a resolution. Answer the unanswerable questions we asked you above. There are only two. But it seems that our prediction was correct. You will never do so. Our faith in your genius is not to be rewarded.

    Would we have thought the same of Einstein if he had failed to come up with MC=√E?

  138. MacDonald Says:

    Hahahahh…. Master Blob, I do believe you’ve now morphed into your trademark split personalities personality:

    the emptiness of the Perth objections to the “never proved” existence of the Virus is now publicly recognized by all here

    All? Sir, maybe you need to sit down for this one: There’s nobody here, or there under that Bowler dreaming it’s a Stetson, except you me and a by this time wholly disinterested, wholly imaginary audience. There is in fact not even a here or there.

    Neither did I say I based my response on a typo. Mr Houston said that. Are you by any chance reading an alternative reality version of your own blog?

    But otherwise your reprimand is well taken. How could I not have perceived that calling the Perth Group “millstones” who “stick to this absurd, self discrediting theme which stains the good science of the dissent by association” was meant as a grovelling apology? My grasp of the meaning of the word “apology” is evidently suffering from a basic lack of gentlemanly virtue. Please accept an apology returned in the same fine spirit for calling you too cowardly to ever apologize to the Perth Group for your ignorant bias.

    I do appreciate the fact you were not prepared to go as far as to accuse me of being a liberal. My heart is warmed by another genuine show of concern for my feelings, so allow me to express my gratitude by formulating my understanding in such a way that it doesn’t come off as questions since I know how much those must annoy a man like you who already has all the answers:

    RH: I have a couple of questions. Do such microvesicles show a cylindrical internal structure as does HIV? Do C-type particles or any known ERVs have the same or similar genetic sequence as HIV?

    1. When you say “internal cylindrical structure you are unintelligible to me, which means you must be unintelligible to everybody else as well. Period.

    2. Possessing a genetic sequence different from other entities does not prove that the entity in question is a novel exogenous retrovirus

  139. Truthseeker Says:

    except you me and a by this time wholly disinterested, wholly imaginary audience.

    Dear me, MacD, do you rate the interest of your holding out against the obvious so low on the meter? The fact that the Perth lunacy is about to be exploded on this blog, and that the intro to such terrorism is your own Pervian modification of their position which you are too shy to reveal to the world, certainly holds great interest for large numbers of readers who await the coup de grace as anxiously as an audience in a Spanish bull ring anticipates the coup de grace being delivered with exquisite balance by the country’s leading matador.

    Perhaps the point of view of the bull forces it into a rather narrower view of the event.

    But NAR is about to remove the largest roadblock that obstructs the currently minimal progress of the revisionists in this multi billion dollar global arena, and with your help. You should be very proud of the clarification you have spurred with your ineffable wit, even though the barbs aimed at the host have fallen so far short.

  140. MacDonald Says:

    Dear host cell, you flatter me beyond endurance. But being the eternal sceptic and kind of bullishly direct to boot, I must insist that until the allegedly numerous but breathless audience could be enticed into a suitably direct manifestation of its presence, I have no choice but to ascribe to it the same ontological status as the elusive virus on much the same grounds.

  141. Truthseeker Says:

    ascribe to it the same ontological status as the elusive virus on much the same grounds.

    MacD we are glad to help you sort out your confusion on this matter if you will clear up our confusion on the greater issue, the one only you, Nick and the Perth pair truly undertand, which is the non-existence of the Virus.

    Your difficulty appears to center on the phrase “all here”, which you seem to think excludes the otherwise extraordinarily gifted commentator MacD, the entirely reliable and well read RH and the distinguished if somewhat dog day lazy host, which is a conclusion as poorly founded as your other one above ie that the Virus is elusive in people because it may not exist at all, when all that is involved is that the tests are decidedly ropey, which is to be expected, since they are for antibodies, which successfully remove the Virus from reporting for duty in every single human able to manufacture them, but which are taken – in one of the breathtakingly senseless reversals of conventional medical understanding of the simple verities of the immune system that make up the logical skeleton of the lifeless paradigm – to mean that the Virus is present, when it is not discernible except perhaps with PCR, which we were hoping you would define as spuriously multiplying endogenous viral bits and pieces to give a false impression, but Alas! you have not done so, in fact you have not offered any alternative interpretation, despite your facility in diverting attention and evading our many glue traps faster than a mouse streaking to safety in a barn.

    Can we tempt you out into the open with a little cheesy verse, perhaps?

    Ode to MacD

    Mr MacD, respectfully, tell us,
    What is the story you want to sell us?
    If the Virus is missing, what is the thing,
    That Bob, Robin and Jay tied up with their string?
    Is it a mouse, or a bat, or just a chimera,
    That has the world in a tizzy of panic and feara?
    Are they virology’s Frankensteins, piecing together,
    Stray endogenous bits with a fantasy tether?
    For Lord’s Sake MacD give us the gen,
    Wittily phrased with your acerbic pen.
    We’ve made some fresh tea, and taken our seat,
    We look forward to hearing, a very fine treat,
    How there’s no there there at the paradigm’s core,
    Not even a Virus that’s breaking the law.
    No wonder its harmless, and cannot infect,
    No wonder the faithful behave like a sect.
    But what of the clone, is that merely a wish,
    Not seen in Nature, but only in dish?
    In the dog days of August we hope you will speak!
    Don’t let confusion reign for even one more week.

  142. MacDonald Says:

    Blog host,

    That verse is truly one of your best, and I will no try to match it.

    Alas, I fear Nick Naylor is not with us any longer. After your last failure to understand the import of what he divulged here in brightest morning sun prose, he burst several veins which forced him to return to his self-enveloped broodings over the biochemical waters.

    So it’s you me and RH here and there.

    The PCR test, as I understand it, picks up what it is primed to pick up, which could be anything. The first question of interest I believe is the correlation between PCR and the antibodies.

  143. Truthseeker Says:

    Good question, from a man whose taste in doggerel appears to be impeccable. The answer, however, will be muddied by the general vagueness of the meaning of the test, due to its ability to get triggered by cross reactions with everything including the kitchen sink, biologically speaking. But what we need is an answer. Does HIV occur in the wild of the human bloodstream or is it all a chimera? If so, what does all the work in the lab with HIV strains mean?

    The sad truth is that the more questions NAR asks of you on these two very simple points, the fewer answers you make. The truth is that you do not have any answers to these two fundamental questions, no? Even if asked in verse?

    If we can agree on that point, then we will go ahead with a NAR post summing up all the points for and against the validity of the Virus as a found object. But to go ahead without agreement from the leader of the Pervians here as to his own view would be rash indeed. That would be like the chief of police in Paris cracking down on anti-revolutionaries in Paris without knowing the whereabouts of the Scarlet Pimpernel.

    Pure foolhardiness.

  144. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. host cell,

    You seem to forget that I’m not thief in chief of my own lab and my own million dollar budget. How could I jump the queue, so to speak, and grab that Nobel prize in front of all those honest eager lights of science by delivering definite proof one way or the other?

    All I can say is that a something which picks out bits and pieces does not to me demonstrate that there’s a replication competent whole somewhere in the mix – 1:60,000 as Ho estimates. I confess I cannot say there’s not one of the buggers in there, but I certainly am not as confident as you that there is. Wihat more is it you want? should I flip a coin or gamble all my capital on either black or red or what? I’ve already amply confirmed I imagine that if you’re red then I’m content to bet on black, seeing as you’re usually wrong in all matters except your latest rhymerie.

  145. Robert Houston Says:

    A few days back I queried the Perth Group in a fantasy Q & A:

    RH: I have a couple of questions. Do such microvesicles show a cylindrical internal structure as does HIV? Do C-type particles or any known ERVs have the same or similar genetic sequence as HIV?

    In regard to this, Mr. MacDonald asked two questions, which I’d like to answer:

    1. When you say “internal cylindrical structure”, are you refering to the conical centre seen in the EMs or something else?

    Ans: Yes, I was referring to the characteristic cone-shaped core of HIV particles, which encases the viral RNA. This distinct core, usually wider at one end than the other, is not seen in microvesicles from the cell, which are generally empty or opaque in EMs.

    2. How does possessing a genetic sequence different from other entities prove that the entity in question is a novel exogenous retrovirus?

    Ans: To be novel is to be different from others. If HIV is an endogenous retrovirus, then the genetic sequence would be the same or very similar and would occur in the human genome. Gallo investigated these possibilities in 1984 and concluded that HIV (HTLV-III) was unique.

  146. Truthseeker Says:

    seeing as you’re usually wrong in all matters except your latest rhymerie.

    This cheekiness is beyond bearing – give us one example, we challenge you, of error on this blog! – especially from an ingrate genius that we have praised to the skies – and even addressed in formal verse, as befits royalty – to try to rid his responses of Impolitesse-triggering barbs, which as always fall short of the host, but nonetheless sometimes set fire to the lawn.

    So the admission is that you do not have anything to offer except a suspicion in the case of PCR that it doesn’t necessarily show that the Virus is there instead of just PCR multiplied bits. Hmm.

    Good, then answer the next point. Has the HIV supposedly found in patients ever been fully sequenced, and if so, how was this achieved from bits? Artificially?

    We ask merely for information.

  147. drpsduke Says:

    Truthseeker asks:
    Has the HIV supposedly found in patients ever been fully sequenced, and if so, how was this achieved from bits?

    Complete genomes of HIV-1 and HIV-2 have been sequenced by a variety of different methods. In the early years (1983 to 1990 or so) it was most common to screen a genomic library made fro the DNA harvested from T-cells, to identify a Lambda clone containing a HIV proviral genome by Southern blotting with cDNA made from virions harvested from the 1.16 g/ml band in sucrose gradients. This was all described in papers from Gallo’s group, for the sequence of the first genome:

    Ratner L, Haseltine W, Patarca R, Livak KJ, Starcich B, Josephs SF, Doran ER, Rafalski JA, Whitehorn EA, Baumeister K, et al.
    Complete nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III.
    Nature. 1985 Jan 24-30;313(6000):277-84.
    PMID: 2578615

    as well as others:

    Sanchez-Pescador R, Power MD, Barr PJ, Steimer KS, Stempien MM, Brown-Shimer SL, Gee WW, Renard A, Randolph A, Levy JA, et al.
    Nucleotide sequence and expression of an AIDS-associated retrovirus (ARV-2).
    Science. 1985 Feb 1;227(4686):484-92.
    PMID: 2578227

    Wain-Hobson S, Sonigo P, Danos O, Cole S, Alizon M.
    Nucleotide sequence of the AIDS virus, LAV.
    Cell. 1985 Jan;40(1):9-17.
    PMID: 2981635

    Hahn BH, Gonda MA, Shaw GM, Popovic M, Hoxie JA, Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F.
    Genomic diversity of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus HTLV-III: different viruses exhibit greatest divergence in their envelope genes.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985 Jul;82(14):4813-7.
    PMID: 2991896

    In later years, many other techniques such as PCR made it possible to amplify and sequence complete genomes or nearly directly from patient serum. The serum contains virion RNA, and it is not easy to get a fully complete, infectious molecular clone from amplification of serum virion RNA because the RNA part of the Long Terminal Repeats are lost in the process, so only the Gag through Nef region of the genome is sequenced directly from virion RNA:

    Rousseau CM, Birditt BA, McKay AR, Stoddard JN, Lee TC, McLaughlin S, Moore SW, Shindo N, Learn GH, Korber BT, Brander C, Goulder PJ, Kiepiela P, Walker BD, Mullins JI.
    Large-scale amplification, cloning and sequencing of near full-length HIV-1 subtype C genomes.
    J Virol Methods. 2006 Sep;136(1-2):118-25. Epub 2006 May 15.
    PMID: 16701907

    Fang G, Weiser B, Visosky AA, Townsend L, Burger H.
    Molecular cloning of full-length HIV-1 genomes directly from plasma viral RNA.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Aug 1;12(4):352-7.
    PMID: 8673543

    Philpott S, Burger H, Tsoukas C, Foley B, Anastos K, Kitchen C, Weiser B.
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genomic RNA sequences in the female genital tract and blood: compartmentalization and intrapatient recombination.
    J Virol. 2005 Jan;79(1):353-63.
    PMID: 15596829

    Infectious clones or complete genomes are either made directly from patient T-cell DNA, for examples:

    Novitsky VA, Montano MA, McLane MF, Renjifo B, Vannberg F, Foley BT, Ndung’u TP, Rahman M, Makhema MJ, Marlink R, Essex M.
    Molecular cloning and phylogenetic analysis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype C: a set of 23 full-length clones from Botswana.
    J Virol. 1999 May;73(5):4427-32.
    PMID: 10196340

    Aulicino PC, Kopka J, Rocco C, Mangano A, Sen L.
    Sequence analysis of a South American HIV type 1 BC recombinant.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2005 Oct;21(10):894-6.
    PMID: 16225418

    Aulicino PC, Kopka J, Mangano AM, Rocco C, Iacono M, Bologna R, Sen L.
    Circulation of novel HIV type 1 A, B/C, and F subtypes in Argentina.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2005 Feb;21(2):158-64.
    PMID: 15725755

    Novitsky V, Smith UR, Gilbert P, McLane MF, Chigwedere P, Williamson C, Ndung’u T, Klein I, Chang SY, Peter T, Thior I, Foley BT, Gaolekwe S, Rybak N, Gaseitsiwe S, Vannberg F, Marlink R, Lee TH, Essex M.
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype C molecular phylogeny: consensus sequence for an AIDS vaccine design?
    J Virol. 2002 Jun;76(11):5435-51.
    PMID: 11991972

    When the researchers want to increase the probability of recovering an infectious molecular clone, the patient’s plasma virus is most often cultured before cloning and sequencing. This is because in the patient serum, the patient’s antibodies are usually doing a good job of clearing most of the normal viruses, and the ratio of defective to normal virions is quite high among viruses that are not bound up to patient antibodies. For examples:

    Rodriguez MA, Chen Y, Craigo JK, Chatterjee R, Ratner D, Tatsumi M, Roy P, Neogi D, Gupta P.
    Construction and characterization of an infectious molecular clone of HIV-1 subtype A of Indian origin.
    Virology. 2006 Feb 20;345(2):328-36. Epub 2005 Nov 9.
    PMID: 16289184

    Lole KS, Bollinger RC, Paranjape RS, Gadkari D, Kulkarni SS, Novak NG, Ingersoll R, Sheppard HW, Ray SC.
    Full-length human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genomes from subtype C-infected seroconverters in India, with evidence of intersubtype recombination.
    J Virol. 1999 Jan;73(1):152-60.
    PMID: 9847317

    Brown BK, Darden JM, Tovanabutra S, Oblander T, Frost J, Sanders-Buell E, de Souza MS, Birx DL, McCutchan FE, Polonis VR.
    Biologic and genetic characterization of a panel of 60 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates, representing clades A, B, C, D, CRF01_AE, and CRF02_AG, for the development and assessment of candidate vaccines.
    J Virol. 2005 May;79(10):6089-101.
    PMID: 15857994

    Gao F, Robertson DL, Carruthers CD, Morrison SG, Jian B, Chen Y, Barre-Sinoussi F, Girard M, Srinivasan A, Abimiku AG, Shaw GM, Sharp PM, Hahn BH.
    A comprehensive panel of near-full-length clones and reference sequences for non-subtype B isolates of human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
    J Virol. 1998 Jul;72(7):5680-98.
    PMID: 9621027

  148. MacDonald Says:

    To be novel is to be different from others. If HIV is an endogenous retrovirus, then the genetic sequence would be the same or very similar and would occur in the human genome. Gallo investigated these possibilities in 1984 and concluded that HIV (HTLV-III) was unique

    Mr. Houston,

    This is in essence your hero Martel’s argument, which I still don’t grasp the relevance of.
    Of course Gallo investigated and found the HIV genome “different” in 1984. Otherwise he would never have presented it and repeated the earlier embarassment when he apparently had mixed two monkey viruses and thought he had discovered a new human one.

    Likewise, according to John Kirkham:

    Under the heading “Preparing Input Data” (for the human genome) at
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/build.html
    we read:

    “The sequence data are first screened for contaminating sequences and blasted against the genomes of other completely sequenced organisms. Any clone containing sequence from another organism is entirely removed from the data input set.
    (I cannot find the heading mentioned, anymore, but perhaps Mr. Houston can relocate the passage if he so desires)

    In other words, once HIV was established as a completely sequenced organism, as a matter of procedure,it could no longer become part of the human genome – or what?

    In any event, being different does not equal being exogenous.

  149. drpsduke Says:

    MacDonald writes:
    “In any event, being different does not equal being exogenous.”

    This is correct. Endogenous means that the sequences are present in germ line (egg and/or sperm) DNA. Endemic means that the organism is frequently found in the population and not increasing in frequency, as opposed to epidemic which means that the number of infected individuals is increasing.

    It has nothing to do with sequence similarity or identity. Some strains of Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus, for example, are found in an endogenous state (in the germ line) of at least some strains of mice.

    MacDonald also claims that the human genome sequence data screens out all pre-existing organism sequences. I cannot find the text he is referring to at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/build.html but maybe he read a different version of it?
    At any rate, his interpretation of that text is most likely incorrect, even if it did exist in an earlier version. But Southern blotting and other methods can be used to prove that no sequences highly related to lentiviruses are found in the genomes of any primates. The closest thing to an endogenous lentivirus was just recently discovered in a rabbit genome:

    Katzourakis A, Tristem M, Pybus OG, Gifford RJ.
    Discovery and analysis of the first endogenous lentivirus.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 10;104(15):6261-5. Epub 2007 Mar 23.
    PMID: 17384150

    And indeed this endogenous retrovirus is much more closely related to lentiviruses, than any other retrovirus yet discovered. The endogenous rabbit virus does not have vif, vpu, nef or most of the other regulatory genes common to exogenous contemporary lentiviruses, but it does have potential tat-like and rev-like regions in addition to the gag, pol and env that all retroviruses have.

  150. MacDonald Says:

    Drpsduke,

    I think most of us were caught a little off guard by the change from the usual talk about endogenous retroviral sequences to endogenous lentiviral sequences. So for the benefit of NAR’s easily confused, but never in the wrong, host (My earlier statement about him usually being wrong was just to land a barb close enough to the house to rouse the inhabitant from his August slumber) perhaps you could conduct a little lentiviral 101 to update us. And please remember the blog host understands only the simplest and most straightforward of prose:

    I take it from what you are saying, that lentiviruses are a specific genus of viruses distinct from other retroviridae by their lentivirus specific genes? And furthermore those genes may explain the specific lentiviral biological properties…?

    I would also like to repeat that we have been through this before, and we are all in agreement that long sequences “highly related” (whatever that means) to HIV are not known to have been found in the human genome, so although the various restatements of that point always receives enthusiastic applause from our host, it is not one of contention.

    ((Inaccurate statement detected by NAR Truthseeker software and italicized. MacD apparently confuses host with some other poster.- Ed.))

    I was hoping that since you think John Kirkham’s (not me) interpretation of the above quote on screening of pre-existing organisms is “most likely incorrect” that you could tell us how it is to be interpreted.

    Until then I’m not sure how the specification that “Southern blotting and other methods can be used to prove that no sequences highly related to lentiviruses are found in the genomes of any primates”, changes anything assuming John Kirkham’s interpretation of the quote is correct

  151. Michael Says:

    Perhaps just as soon as one of the fine thinkers on this blog collects the following reward which has been offered since May of 2007, we will all have the final answer to the “Duesberg VS Perth yet together VS the Orthodoxy” question of isolation answered!

    Until such a time as someone collects the $50,000 reward, the good Mr. MacDonald will not be shut out of this debate, no matter how many names he be called!

    May 2007
    Alive & Well $50,000 Fact Finder Award
    Find One Study, Save Countless Lives
    Alive & Well will present a cash award of $25,000 to the first person to locate a study that provides us with missing evidence about the accuracy of HIV tests, and in celebration of this important finding, will donate an additional $25,000 to Heifer International, a unique charity working to end hunger in the developing world using a holistic approach to building sustainable communities.

    The missing evidence we’re looking for is a study published in a peer reviewed medical journal that shows the validation of any HIV test by the direct isolation of HIV from the fresh, uncultured fluids or tissues of positive testing persons.

    Since no HIV test directly detects HIV itself, and since the tests currently used to diagnose HIV infection rely on surrogate markers such as antibodies or genetic material, a study should exist somewhere in the published medical literature which shows that at least one type of surrogate test for HIV has been validated for accuracy by the direct isolation of HIV itself from people who test antibody, RNA or DNA positive.

  152. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks Dr Duke for your posts with proper references. What point were you trying to make, exactly, though? That sequences don’t indicate a virus is endogenous if they substantially occur in the human genome? Surely they do. That’s why Gallo hurried to check, is it not? Examples of viruses existing in both forms with great similarity are rare, and there are none in humans as far as we know. Do you know of any?

    And a sequence which is essentially different with no full counterpart in the genome would mean exogenous, would it not, contrary to MacD?

    $50,000 reward

    Good one, Michael. We will write a summary mother of all bunkerbusters post shortly on the Perth claim that the existence of the Virus is “not proven”, and we will include a section with the papers we will previously forward meeting this challenge from the courageous Christine Maggiore insofar as it can be satisfied, since as stated it cannot be precisely met, though this may be a matter of formulation rather than spirit.

    That is to say, the word “fresh” seems to ignore the need for concentrating enough HIV to analyze it properly by mass producing it in culture as Gallo did to purify it, ultra centrifugation, or otherwise filtering junk out, cloning, whatever. Basically the precise formulation looks like a booby trap to catch out any claimants, and the $50,000 will never be awarded, just as Continuum welched on the deal with Duesberg.

    However, Christine being such a fine, upstanding citizen and major general of truthseeking to boot we expect and hope we are wrong on this point.

  153. drpsduke Says:

    The ONLY points I were trying to make were:

    1) Truthseeker asked:
    Has the HIV supposedly found in patients ever been fully sequenced, and if so, how was this achieved from bits?

    So I wanted to show that complete genomes of HIV-1 had in fact been recovered directly from patient serum in a couple of cases, but more often they are from patient T-cells, with or without culturing the patient T-cells.

    2) MacDonald wrote:
    “In any event, being different does not equal being exogenous.”

    And I wanted to point out that many people confuse the terms endogenous and endemic. Many people think that any virus that is passed primarily from mother to infant is “endogenous”, when this is true ONLY if the virus is passed in the germline DNA from mother or father to infant, such is not the case for HTLV-1, HTLV-2 or lentiviruses.

  154. Truthseeker Says:

    Yes, 2. needed saying, if that is the confusion. But you mention lentiviruses, when we have long understood from Nobelist-manque Peter Duesberg that there are no genuine lentiviruses, only genuine lentivirologists.

    You do not sound like one of the latter, so we hope you will confirm where you stand on that point. We are of course referring to the concept of the latent period, where a virus roundly defeated by the home army of antibodies somehow years later comes back from nowhere to be labeled the culprit for illness, and thus attract public funds for its researchers who would otherwise be bereft of such largesse.

    Close examination of this claim by Duesberg on p 75 of his popular reference volume Inventing the AIDS Virus, which should be bedside reading for all who are worried by the idea that a positive HIV test has health consequences which must be warded off by imbibing drugs manufactured by companies which support the research of Mark Wainberg and John P. Moore, indicates that in the opinion of Duesberg, a most literate and logically well ordered member of the National Academy, all such theorizing is self serving guff, contradicting the basic principles of virology, where viruses invade the human system, and multiply at fantastic rates of a hundred to a thousandfold a day, such that they produce one hundred trillion cells within a week or two, unless curbed and defeated by the immune system.

    The healthy immune system will never allow any virus to reactivate after any period of dormancy, so the only way a resurgence is possible is that the immune system is damaged and defeated by some other cause – not the virus. Then the virus can reactivate as an opportunistic infection, just as the virologists reactivate opportunistically once the basic principles of virology have been weakened and overcome by insufficient public funding.

  155. Nick Naylor Says:

    “So I wanted to show that complete genomes of HIV-1 had in fact been recovered directly from patient serum in a couple of cases, but more often they are from patient T-cells, with or without culturing the patient T-cells.”

    References?

    To bring up, once again, the tired subject of what’s been sequenced in the human genome: the specially selected and ENGINEERED DATA BASE known as “builds” cannot possibly have sequences of more than the tiniest of tiny fractions of extant human retroviruses; endogenous, exogenous or endemic.

    So we have one more big SO WHAT.

    And yes, if one excludes “contaminants”, guess what sequences will not be found …

  156. Nick Naylor Says:

    “The endogenous rabbit virus does not have vif, vpu, nef or most of the other regulatory genes common to exogenous contemporary lentiviruses, but it does have potential tat-like and rev-like regions in addition to the gag, pol and env that all retroviruses have.”

    All of these genes have a documented cellular function as regulators of eukaryotic transcription – essentially not understood in 1985. How complete is the investigation into the rabbit’s genome, pray tell, to come up with such bold statements?

    And so, once again, one of our good friends – who insists on defending this shaky HIV paradigm – has shown us how to square the circle.

  157. drpsduke Says:

    Nick Naylor asks:

    References?

    Apparently unable to comprehend that I provided references for every statement I made. For example, for the complete genomes directly from virion RNA in plasma see:

    Fang G, Weiser B, Visosky AA, Townsend L, Burger H.
    Molecular cloning of full-length HIV-1 genomes directly from plasma viral RNA.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Aug 1;12(4):352-7.
    PMID: 8673543

    Philpott S, Burger H, Tsoukas C, Foley B, Anastos K, Kitchen C, Weiser B.
    Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 genomic RNA sequences in the female genital tract and blood: compartmentalization and intrapatient recombination.
    J Virol. 2005 Jan;79(1):353-63.
    PMID: 15596829

    He also asks:
    How complete is the investigation into the rabbit’s genome, pray tell, to come up with such bold statements?

    And the answer is that the complete genomes of rabbite, mouse, rat, human, chimpanzee, and many other mammals were scanned to find that ONLY the rabbit genome had a lentivirus-like sequence in it.

    Of course there are tiny little bits of “HIV-like” sequence in the genome of any organism. Just as you can find the text “call me” in almost any book, but very few books begin with “Call me Ishmael.” A GOOGLE search on [Call me Ishmael.] instantly bings up Moby Dick, and a BLAST search with [accctagccttttagaaacagcagaagggtgccagcaaataatagaacag] instantly brings up a HIV-1 isolate from Cuba.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/blast/Blast.cgi?CMD=Web&LAYOUT=TwoWindows&AUTO_FORMAT=Semiauto&PAGE=Nucleotides&NCBI_GI=yes&FILTER=L&HITLIST_SIZE=100&SHOW_OVERVIEW=yes&AUTO_FORMAT=yes&SHOW_LINKOUT=yes

    So you don’t want to let the titles of some papers fool you:

    Horwitz MS, Boyce-Jacino MT, Faras AJ.
    Novel human endogenous sequences related to human immunodeficiency virus type 1.
    J Virol. 1992 Apr;66(4):2170-9.
    PMID: 1548756

    What they found was not complete lentiviral genomes, with Gag, Pol and Env genes, but just tiny little bits with some similarity to HIV.

    In contrast, the rabbit genome contains not only Gag, Pol and Env, but they are in the right order, and flanked by Long Terminal Repeats. Also, the 5′ Long Terminal Repeat is followed by a sequence complementary to the rabbit Lysine transfer RNA, just as all HIV-1 sequnences have a human Lysine tRNA sequence complementary sequence. This is because all lentiviruses use the host Lys-3 tRNA to prime reverse transcription of their genomes.

    Renda MJ, Bradel-Tretheway B, Planelles V, Bambara RA, Dewhurst S.
    Inhibition of HIV type 1 replication using lentiviral-mediated delivery of mutant tRNA(Lys3)A58U.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2004 Dec;20(12):1324-34.
    PMID: 15650425

    Kleiman L, Halwani R, Javanbakht H.
    The selective packaging and annealing of primer tRNALys3 in HIV-1.
    Curr HIV Res. 2004 Apr;2(2):163-75. Review.
    PMID: 15078180

    Kang SM, Zhang Z, Morrow CD.
    Identification of a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 that stably uses tRNALys1,2 rather than tRNALys,3 for initiation of reverse transcription.
    Virology. 1999 Apr 25;257(1):95-105.
    PMID: 10208924

    etc…

  158. drpsduke Says:

    The paper on the Rabbit endogenous lentivirus did not provide a single GenBank entry with the sequence of this lentivirus. The Rabbit genome contains many copies of it, only a few of which are complete or nearly complete genomes. Like all endogenous retroviruses, the rabbit endogenous lentivirus-like virus got copied around the genome a few times over the past 7 million years or so since it integrated into the germ line, and many of the copies are just the LTRs with not gag-pol-env in between them, others are just pol with no LTRs or gag or env.

    Anyway, in case anyone is interested the virus sequence is:

    >RELIK
    TGTTAGGGAACCATTCACGGAGAAAGTAACTGTAGCGCCGTTTGAAAGAAAGTAACTGTA
    GCACACTTTGAAAGAAAGTAACTGCGCAGTAGCACAGCTTGAAAGAAAAGTAGAAAAGTA
    ACCACCCTAGCTGGTAAGATTTGAAAAGGGATGGCCTAACTAGATGGCCTAACCACAAAC
    TGTCATTGCCATGACTACGGGACCCTGGGAGGTCAGAATGTGGGCGGGGCTAGCCTCTAG
    AAACTGTATATAAGGGGACCCTCAGATGCTGTAAACCAGAGGTTGCTCAGCCTCTCTCCC
    CGGTCCGTAGTGCCTAGTGCCCACGGGGAGAAGCTCCTGGTCCGTAGTGCCTAGTGCCCG
    CAGGAGTAGGCTTGAGCGATCTCTCCTCCTAGTCGCCTAGAGTATCAATAAAGTGTGTTT
    AGCTTGACCTTCCTCAGTCTCCTCGACTCTTCCTTCGTGGTAACCTGGCCAGTTCCTGAA
    GGGGGAGATCCTGACAGCTGGCGCCCGAACAGGGACCTGAAGTCAGACGGTGGTGAGGAG
    ACGAGCCCTTGAGGAATCGTCAAAAGGGTGAGTAGTGGTGGTTGAAAGAGACCACGATGG
    GTGGGACGTCCCAGTCAAAAGAATATAGGCAGGCACTAGTGAGTATAGAGAAGGTGAAGG
    TCCTTCCAGGCCAGGCACCAAGAGGCAAGAAAGTGAAGTGCTACTCACCAGGAAATGTAA
    CATGGGCTTGTAAGCTGGCAGCAGCTTGTACAGGACGGGACCTCCAAGATCTGCAGACCT
    TGGAAGAGGTAGAAAACCTCCTGGAGGAATTTCTACAAAAAGGAGAAGGCGCCACAACAG
    GGAAAGATTATAAATGTGCAGTAGACACCCTTAAGGTGTTAATTTGTTGTGGCAAGGGAT
    TAAATCCAAAAAATACAGGAGATGCCTGTAAGCTCTATGACGCCATAGCAGAATGTAGGC
    AAAAACCTCAGGTTGTTCCCAGAGAGTTAAGTAAGGAAGAAAAAGCAAAAGAACAGTCAG
    CTTACCCGATAATGTTAAGAGGTGGTAGACAAGAATATGAGCCTGTGGGACCTGGACTAA
    TAGCCGCTTGGCTTAAACAAGTTCAGGAACACGGTCTCACGCACCCAGCTACCATCACTT
    ATTTTGGGGTAATTTCAGTAAACTTTACATCGGTAGACATCAATATGCTACTGAATGTAA
    CTCCTGGCTTTGCAGCAGAGAAACAGCTAGTCATAGATAAGATAAAAGAGAAGGCGATAG
    CATGGGATGAGATGCATCCCCCTCCCCCAGCCGACGCGGCTGGACCAGTGCCACTAACAT
    CAGATCAGATTAGGGGAATTGGATTATCACCAGAAGAAGCAGCTGGCCCTAGATTTGCTG
    ATGCCAGAACCCTCTATAGAACATGGGTTCTTGAGGCGCTTCAAGAATGCCAGAGAACTA
    TCAGTGGGGCCCCTAAAGCAGTCAGCATCAGACAAGGGCCCAAAGAACCCTACCCTGAGT
    TTATTAATCGATTATTTACTCAGATTGATATGGAAACATCTAGAGAGGATTTGAGAACAT
    ATTTAAAGGACACCATGAGCATTCAAAATGCTAATGAAGAATGTAAAAAGTTGCTTAGAA
    ATTTAAGACCAGGAGATTCGTTAGAAGAAAAAATGTATGCCTGTAGAGAATTTGGATCCA
    CCTCCTATAAGATGGCCATGCTGGCAGAAGCCTTAAAGGCTGGAGATAGACAGCAAGGGT
    CAAGAAGTTTTCAGGGAAATTGTTACAGATGCGGAAAAAAGGGGCATATGGCAAGAAATT
    GTAGGAGTGGAGAAAAAACTCCACTAAAATGCTATAATTGTGGGAGAACAGGACATATGG
    CAAAAGTATGTAGACAGCCAAAAAACGGGAAAGCGGGGGGCAATGCCCCCCGGACCATGA
    TGGCGTCTGCCCAGAATATCCAGTCATCTATCCCACCATCTGCCCCACCCCTGGGGGAAA
    CACAGACGGAAGCCCCTGCGACAGGGATCTACCCGAAACTACCAAAATAGAATTAAAACA
    AAGACCTACCTTAAAGGTAAACCTAGGGGGGAAAGATATAATAGGGCTGTTAGACACAGG
    GGCTGATTTAACTATAATAAGGGAACAAGAGGCTAAAGGAATAAAAGAAGGGATAACAGA
    AGGATGGCAAAATATAGAGGGGGTGGGAGGGTGCTCTAAATTACAAAAAATATCACAGGT
    TACACTGAAAGACAAAAAAGGAAGGAAGACAAAGACATCCATTCTAATATCCCCAGATAT
    TCCCATCAATATATTTGGAAGGGATATCTTAACAAAGTTAGGGGTAGCCCTAATTATGGC
    ACAACTCTCTACCCAAATTACCCCAATAAAGATAAAAATGAAAGATCCTAATAAAGGTCC
    CTTGATTCCCCAATGGCCTTTAACCAAAGAAAAATTAGAAGGAATTAAGGAAATAACAAA
    AAGACTACTAGAGGAAGGGAAGATATCTCCAGCAGACCCAGATAATCCCTGGAACACCCC
    AATATTTGTGATAAGGAAAAAATCAGGTAAATGGCGAATGTTAATAGATTTTAGAGAACT
    TAATAAATTAGTAGATAAGGGAAGAGAAGTTCAGTTAGGTATTCCACACCCTGGAGGATT
    ACAAAGAAGAAACCAGGTTACTGTTTTGGATATAGGGGATGCTTATTTTACCATCCCTCT
    GGATAAGGACTTCAGGCAGTACACTGCCTTTACCATCCCAGAGGTTAATAATCAAGGTCC
    AGGCCATAGGTATGTTTGGAATTGCCTCCCACAAGGTTTTGTATTAAGTCCCTTGATTTA
    CCAAAGTACACTAAGGGACATACTAGAGCCCTGGAGACAACAACACCCAGAAGTAGATCT
    TTATCAATATATGGATGATATATATATTGGGTCCGATCATTCTCCAAAACAACACAAACT
    GATCATAGAAAAACTCAGAAAAATGCTTTTAGAAAAGGGATTCGAGACCCCAAATGAGAA
    ATTACAAGAACAATATCCCTATTCATGGATGGGGTACTTGTTGCACCCAAATAAATGGAC
    ATTGCAAAAACTAGAGTTGCCAGAACTTCCAGAGAAGCCCACCCTAAACGAACTACAAAA
    GTTAGTAGGACTCCTTAATTGGATGACCCAAGCTGTTCCTGGAATTAAGACAAAACCTTT
    TACTCTTATGATGAAGGGAAACCAAGAGTTAAATAGTATCAGGGAATGGACCCCCGAAGC
    AAGACAGGAGTTACGGACTATAAGGAGGCTATTACAAGAACACAAACCTTTAAGCTACTG
    GGACCCCAGCAAGGAAGTTTACTGTACAGTTATGATGGGAGGTAACACCATAAATTATAA
    AGTGCACCAAGGATCTGATATCCTTTGGGTAGGTAGACAGGAATTTCCAAAGGTATTAGC
    AGCATCTCCTCTAACTAGAGCCCTAAAATGTCTACATAAAATCAGACAAGAATGTATTAT
    ACGAATAGGGCAAGAACCTATATATAGGTTACCTATAAAAAAAGAGGATTTAGATGTTAT
    GATTCAGGAAGACCCCTACTTGCATTGGGTACCACAGATTGAATGTATCCATGTGCCTTT
    AATGCTTAGAAGAGCACTAAGCAGTCTTCAAGGTCATCCCGTGCCAGGACCTACTTACTA
    TGTTGATGGAGGAAGCAAACAGGGGCAAGGAAAATATGGCTTTTGGAGATCAGATGGAGT
    TAAACTAGTTAAGGAGAGTGAGGGAAGTAATCAAGAATTAGAAAAAAGAGCCATGCTACT
    AGCCCTTCAAGAAGGACCCCCGATAATGAATATAGTTACGGATTCCCAATATGTATATAC
    ATTAATTGAGGCCAGACCCCTACCTGTAAATATTGAAGAACCCTTGCTTAGAACCATACT
    AGAAGCTATAGAAAGTAAAGAAGAAATTTACATCCAATGGGTGCCTGGACATAAGGGAAT
    CCCAGGCAATGAAAATATTGACAAATTAGTTTCACAAATAAATACAACTCAAATAAACCT
    GGTAGTACAAGGTGGTCACATTAAGGAAAAAGAACCAGAACAGATTGGATACTCCATAAG
    TGCCCCAAAAGATCTGGTACTTATGCCAAAGGTAATAGAGACCCTTAACCTACAAACACA
    AATTACCATAATCCCAGGACAGTGGGGGTGGATAACAGAAACATCAGAGATGACTGAGGC
    CAAAGTAAGGGTAGTTGGAGGTTTCATCAGCCCAGGAGATCAAAATCCTTTAAAGATAAG
    ATTGGTCAACCTATCCCAAAAAATAGTATATGTAAAAACAGGACAACTAATAGCTCAGTT
    AATTTTAATGCCTGTCCTCCATGACATAAGTAAGGCACCAAACATCTTTTTTCTAGAACA
    TATTGAGACAGCCACGGATGATCATGCTAAATGGCATAGTGATGTGTCATACTTGAGACA
    ACAATTCAGCTTACCAAAAATTGTAGCAGAACAAATAATAAAGAACTGCCCCAAGTGTGT
    GCATAAAGGAGGAACTACTCCTCATATTAGTAGATCAGGGCCAGGACTGTGGCAAATGGA
    TGTGACCCACTATGAGGCCCGGCTAATTCTGGTAGCCATTGAGACATCTACTGGCCTTCT
    ATGGGCTAAGCTAATTCCTAAGGAAACTGCTCAGGAAACAGTATGGGGAATATTAGAACT
    ACAGAACCTATTTCATATCCAAGCACTCCATACAGATAATGGCCCTAACTTCACAGCAGA
    AAGGGTCACGGGACTGTGCCAATATTTAAATATTGATCATACCACAGGCACACCCTATAA
    TCCACAGTCGCAGGGAATGGTTGAGAGAGCTAATCAATCCTTAAAACAAGAAATGGATAA
    ATTTGCTGATGTAGTTCAAACCATTGAAGCACGGCTACAATTGGCTCTTATCGCCCTTAA
    TCAAAAGAAAAGGGGAGGAATAGGGGGCTATACTCCTACTGAAAGATATATCCATCAGAG
    ATGGCAAGAACTAGAGCAAACGCTCCAACTCCAGAAATTTAAAGACAAAAAACTCTTTTG
    CTTTTATAGATTACCAAACAGTAAAGACTGGAAAGGGCCCACTACCATCCTTTGGAAAGG
    ATTTCCAATTAGGCACTAATGGAATATCAATTGCAATTATCCTGTCAAAAGAACTCATGT
    GTTTGTAAGAAATGTAGATACCACTGTCAGTTGTGCTTTTTACAGAAAGAATTAGGGATT
    TCATATTCCAGAGCTAGGACTAAAGAACTCCAGAAATGGCAACAGCAGCAGCAAACGGAG
    AAATGTACATTAAAGGAAGAGAAGCAAAAGACCTCTATGAACAGTATGCACTTAAACAAT
    TAAGTGAGGAAGAAAATCCACCAGTTGTAAACCCTTTTGAGGGATTGCCCGAGGACCAAC
    AAGATGAATTAGCAGCCCGACAACAAGCACATCTACAACAGGTAAAAGAAGAATTAAAGA
    GATGGGACCCAGATAAAGGTAAGTTAATTGAAGGTAAGCAAACACTTAAACGATTTAAAA
    TATTAGGCAACTTAATGAGATTGTGGGAAAGATTTGAACTACCTATGCTCAGAGCTTATG
    GATTGATAATGACAATTATCATCTTAATTATATTGCCAAGTGTAAAAACAGAAGAACAAG
    TGTTAGGCTTAGTAGAAAACCCACCAGCCTATACATACCCTGATATTAATAATGTGCCCT
    TTACCTGTGAATCAAACATACCAAGGTCAGGATGTGAGCCCACAGGGACTCTATCCCTCA
    TTAAGACGAAAGTAAAAAATTATACTATTCCTTGGTTAACCCATGCTAAGGAATTGGTGG
    GACCTTGGAGAGATTTAATTGAACAATTTTTCTCTAGCAATTGTAAAAGGTCTAAAATAG
    AATGCGGTAATTATACTTGTCATGCACACAATAATTATACAAATTGGACATGCAATGGTG
    TAGTACCAAAATTGACAGGGCCCTTAAACCTAATAACAAAACAAAGTATATCCTTTTTGA
    CTGATGCAGGATCTATGGAATGTATAGACATTACAGAGATTAAAGAAAATGCCCCCTTAA
    CTTGCACAATGAGAGGATGCTCACTGGAAGGAACTATTTATGAAGCATGTGACAAGTGGA
    AACAAACAATGTTTGAAGTAGGATTAAGTAGACTGTGTGTCAGACCCCCATTTGCTTTAA
    TTAAATGCTTAGAATATAAGACATATAGCCTGAGCAGAGATGACAAATCTTACTGGGGAA
    AGCCTAACTGTACCTCGTGGGTAACAACAACATGCACAGAAGAGATACCTTTCGTAGGGC
    CAGATCTAACCCTGCTAGGATTAGAGCATTCGTATTTAGAACCATATGTTAATAATAGCA
    AGGAGAGGATGGATTACTCAGAATGGGAAACTGCATTTGCCCATGACATAGATCCCAGTC
    TTATTATAACAAAGATTCAGGGGCATATCAATTGCTCCTGCGTAGCTGTAAAGGACTCTT
    TGGTGTGGATGACCTTTGAACAAAACAGGGGAGTCCAAATAGGGGAGGGACAAGAAAAGG
    ATCTAGAGAGAATTAGTCATGTAGAGTGTTCCTTCTATTATGAAAATGAGAGTTACTACC
    TTAATGAATCAAACATACCCTATTTATCAACTCCAGGCTTTGGATATAGCATGTATATGA
    ACGAAACATATAAAATACAATGGTCAACAATTCGAGATGAGTTTTCTGTCTCTTTTATTT
    GTAAAAATGGCTCAGAGCATAGATATATTAGATGCAGACCTCCAAGTAATAATCAGTCAA
    CACATTGTTTTTGGCAGGCAGGATATGAAATGTTTCACAAACATTTTGTAAAAACTCCAG
    TAAGGGAAGACCCAGGAAGTTGGACATGCAGGACAGAAGGGGAGGTATTGTATGCTAGAT
    GCACACACCCATTAGATTCTAAAAAGGAGCTCGGTTGCTATATAAGGGACTTGGAATGGG
    AAGAGAGAATGATAACATTCTTGGCTCCATATATGGTGGTAAAGGCAACTCCCTTCACAT
    ATGTACCAGTAAATATGTCTGATTTGACTATACCAATAAAACCGATGCACAAAAAAAGAG
    ACTTTGGAGTAACAGCAGCTATTGTCACTATAGCAGTGTCAGCAGCCACGGTAGCTGGCG
    CTGTGACTGGAGCACTGGCTCTAAGCACTACCCAACTACAGGGAGATGCTTTGGAGTCCC
    TCCTGAAGGTAATTCAGGAGCAGCGGGCTCAGCTAGGTGACCAGTCAGCACTGCTTAAGA
    CACATGCTATGGGGCTCCAGATGCTCGAAGCACACACGGTACAAATAGAACAGATAATTA
    CTATACTAGCTTTGGAAAGAGAACTCAAGTGTGAAGCGATTGGAAGAGTTTGCATTACCA
    CCATTCCGTGGAACAATCTATCCATTCCTAATGCAACACAACTAGCTGATATGTTCAAAC
    ACAACCATTCTACCTGGCTAGAGTGGGTAAATGCAACCGCTCATCTTGAGGCTAACATTA
    AGAAGGAGCAGTAGTGATCGACACACCTGAAAAGGGGATTATTAGCTTGCCCCAAAGACA
    TGTTAGGATGGTTCCAGCCCCAGGACCTCAGGATTTGGGACTAAGAGAGCTCTACAGATA
    ATACAGCTTCAAAATATAGCGGCATTTAAGATAGGTCAAGTCAAAACAGTGGAACAGACA
    ATAAATACTCTGACTGACACAGTTTCCTCTTGGCTCCCATCCTGGAAATGGTTTAAAATA
    GGAGCAATATTTTGTATGGTTCTTGTATGCTTGCCTATCTTACAGCACCTCTTCTCAATT
    GGACGGAATTTCACGAAGGGATACCTAGCCCTCCGAAAGGAACCCAGCCCACCAGAAATA
    GAAGAAGAAGAAGAAGAAACCCCGAATCTGGAAATCAATCCAGGATATGCTCAAGAATGT
    TCATCCCCTTGGCCCAGCGGCTCAACGGGCTTTACAGGGCTATGAGAGCATTTAAAGAAA
    AGAAAAGGGAGGACTGTTAGGGAACCATTCATGGAGAAAGTAACTGTAGCACCATTTGAA
    ACAAAGTAACTGTAGCACCCTTTGAAAGAAAGTAACTGCACAGCAGCACCAGCTTGAAAG
    AAAAGTAGAAAAGTAACCACGCTAGCGGGTAAGATTTGAAAAGGGATGGCCTAACTAGAC
    GGCCTAACCACAAACTGTCATTGCCATGACTATGGGACCCTGGGAGGTCAGAATGTGGGC
    GGGGCTAGCCTCTAGAAACTGTATATAAGGGGACCCTCAGATGCTGTAAACCAGAGGTTG
    CTCAGCCTCTCTCCCTGGTCCGTAGTGCCTTGTGCCCACGGGGAGAAGCTCCTGGTCCAT
    AGTGCCTAGTGCCCGCAGGAGTAGGCTTGAGCGATCTCTCCTCCTAGTCGCCTAGAGTAT
    CAATAAAGTGTGTTTAGCTTGACCTTCCTCAGTCTCCTCGACTCTTCCTTCGTGGCAACC
    TGGCCAGTTCCCGGAGGGGGAGATCCTGACA

  159. drpsduke Says:

    The rabbit endogenous lentivirus Pol protein, translated from the genome, is:

    >RELIK-Pol
    KGREVQLGIPHPGGLQRRDQVTVLDIGDAYFTIPLDKDFRQYTAFTIPEVNNQGPGHRYVWNCLPQDFVLSPLIYQSTLR
    DILEPWRQQHPEVDFYQYMDDKYIGSDHSPKQHKLIVEKLRKMLLEKGFKTPNEX-QEQYPYSWMGYLLHPNKWTLRK
    LELPELPEKPTLNKLQKLVGLLNWMTQAVPGIKTKPFTLIMKGNQ-LYSIREWTPX—-LWTIRRLLQEHKHLSY–
    PSKEVYCTVMMGGNTINYKVHQGSDILWVGRQEFPKVLAASPLTRALKCLHKIRQECIIRIGQEPIYRLPIKK

    The catalytic site of all lentivirus reverse transcriptases contains the YMDD (Lys-Met-Asp-Asp) site.
    About one-third of the way across the second line above. Overall, the RELIK Pol protein is about 44% idential to HIV-1 Pol and about 51% identical to Feline Imminodeficiency Virus Pol. I would guess it would only be about 25% to 30% identical to Pol from HTLV-1 or MMTV or RSV.

  160. drpsduke Says:

    Ooops. Y is Tyr, Tyrosine; not Lys, Lysine.

    YMDDK is Tyr-Met-Asp-Asp-Lys

  161. MacDonald Says:

    Fascinating!

  162. drpsduke Says:

    I overestimated how similar the rabbit lentivirus Pol reverse transcriptase protein would be to to the mouse mammary tumor virus Pol reverse transcriptase. It is only 23% identical to MMTV Pol, 34% Identical to Rous Sarcoma Virus Pol protien. But I was in the right ballpark. In contrast, HIV-2 Pol reverse transcriptase protein is 62% identical to HIV-1 reverse transcriptase.

    20% to 50% identity may not sound like a lot, but there are 20 amino acids to choose from at each site, so any two random sequences of HSPKQHLWVGRQHPGGLQR etc.. end up being less than 5% identical to each other.

    The Pol reverse transcriptase from Chimpanzee immunodeficiency viruses range from 85% identical to HIV-1 (for the Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii strains) to 89% identical to HIV-1 (for the Pan troglodytes troglodytes strains).

    HERV-K (one of the human endogenous retroviruses) Pol reverse transcriptase is 33% identical to HIV-1 reverse transcriptase.

    Most of the the other reverse transcriptases use YVDD or YIDD sequences at their catalytic core, and prefer Mn++ to Mg++ for the metal ion used in catalysis. Lentiviruses universally use YMDD and prefer Mg++.

    Krug MS, Berger SL.
    Reverse transcriptase from human immunodeficiency virus: a single template-primer binding site serves two physically separable catalytic functions.
    Biochemistry. 1991 Nov 5;30(44):10614-23.
    PMID: 1718423

    Kati WM, Johnson KA, Jerva LF, Anderson KS.
    Mechanism and fidelity of HIV reverse transcriptase.
    J Biol Chem. 1992 Dec 25;267(36):25988-97.
    PMID: 1281479

    Beard WA, Stahl SJ, Kim HR, Bebenek K, Kumar A, Strub MP, Becerra SP, Kunkel TA, Wilson SH.
    Structure/function studies of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase. Alanine scanning mutagenesis of an alpha-helix in the thumb subdomain.
    J Biol Chem. 1994 Nov 11;269(45):28091-7.
    PMID: 7525566

    Castro C, Smidansky E, Maksimchuk KR, Arnold JJ, Korneeva VS, Gotte M, Konigsberg W, Cameron CE.
    Two proton transfers in the transition state for nucleotidyl transfer catalyzed by RNA- and DNA-dependent RNA and DNA polymerases.
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13;104(11):4267-72. Epub 2007 Mar 5.
    PMID: 17360513

    Arnold E, Ding J, Hughes SH, Hostomsky Z.
    Structures of DNA and RNA polymerases and their interactions with nucleic acid substrates.
    Curr Opin Struct Biol. 1995 Feb;5(1):27-38.
    PMID: 7539708

    Jablonski SA, Morrow CD.
    Mutation of the aspartic acid residues of the GDD sequence motif of poliovirus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase results in enzymes with altered metal ion requirements for activity.
    J Virol. 1995 Mar;69(3):1532-9.
    PMID: 7853486

  163. Nick Naylor Says:

    “Of course, the real reason for this absence is that there is no alternate explanation: on this issue Perthian science is bankrupt. All their followers can do is to repeat the Perth critiques of 1983-1984 experiments, as Mr. Naylor dutifully does, and then answer any and all questions with patronizing put-downs.”

    TS, with all due respect, you’ve effectively created a classic double bind in this thread. Plus you’ve pulled an Adele with this caricature of my position. Do you see how Duke wound things up here? Can I be fair to him by just pulling a slogan out of my pocket, or resort to a put down since my last post actually did address his substantive points in a form (hopefully) intelligible to you?

    The part of scientific method that calls for pointing out flaws in evidence and reasoning that support a particular hypothesis does not require the presentation of an alternative.

    As you can see from Duke’s posts, there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that’s been produced by the government sponsored research cartel and there will ALWAYS be papers I haven’t read that can be thrown at me. After all, we’re talking about at least $100 billion dollars worth of research, not exactly what you can call a level playing field. So when you, say, offend MacDonald’s sense of what constitutes intellectual good faith, yeah, more than a few jabs will come your way.

    And of course, Perth Group has done this presentation of an alternative anyway, right down to the molecular level that addresses the place where retroviruses fit in. It’s all in Continuum and it really shouldn’t matter to a truthseeker that it wasn’t a Tier I Journal. So I now point out, not to insult you, that perhaps you’ve been taken in by the other side’s (Chris Nobel) ploys, e.g. repetitive insisting on an alternative hypothesis when one has already been presented.

    Everything I’ve put up here since Martle (remember HIS attempt to mislead us with the annealing temperature BS?) is to make the case that the other side’s position hangs on a fundamental contradiction between the biological properties of a lentivirus and the biological properties of a viral quasispecies. Many of the points raised by Peter Duesberg, especially 1987 – 1990, highlight this fundamental contradiction. You can call it a “forensic overlap” with the Perthian position but – and I don’t mean this as a put-down – you MUST do some work to get this.

    And of course, this is a reminder of the tragic, but I’ve also argued could have been prevented, outcome of the Parenzee Case.

  164. Truthseeker Says:

    Certainly don’t mean to shortchange your position Nick by oversimplifying. But what exactly is the alternative explanation offered by Perth or anybody else for the claims of the $100 billion establishment that they reliably clone and sequence the elusive HIV Virus in later ie more recent years than 1983-4? That they are lying? Presumably not. That they are mistaking one thing A for another thing B? OK, if so, then let’s have that accusation in a form that the average news reader can follow. What is A, and what is B, and how and why did they get away with the mistake once the Perth group pointed it out?

    Perhaps you will allow us to say that the ultimate aim of this blog and its discussion is to get policymakers to open this can of worms and rescue the victims of the AIDS meme from damage and death. This can only be done by speaking to non scientists in as many double and monosyllables as possible, preferably in Anglo Saxon rather than Latin verbiage (not saying you indulge in Latinate verbiage, merely stating the requirements as we see them). Politicians have neither the time nor the acumen to deal with endless subtleties, and their staff need everything simplified too, given the amount of stuff that gets thrown at them. Are you aware for example that the New York Times gets 400 letters a day? That’s at least 40 times the number they print,. right? David Pogue just revealed this at the Javits Photoplus show. Presumably Congressional staff get innumerable tips of the same nature. So we have to keep things simple. Also, the slow witted blog host and newcomers to this blog need the same service. So don’t mind us asking you to give us a sound bite here. Not intended to demean your research or your argument in any way.

    The lab workers of the world say that they can clone and sequence and culture the Virus, and analyze small variations in its RNA. What are they doing if the Perth group are right and they are not doing what they think they are doing?

    Without an answer to this question it is really a matter of sniping without result at the established notion, which doesn’t seem to produce many difficulties of its own accord.

  165. Nick Naylor Says:

    “If Aetiology, with commenters like Chris Noble and Trrl, whom you thought the world of when they were here on NAR, not least their irreproachable politesse,” (MacDonald)

    “for their politesse, when we also admired them for their ability to make scientific statements and objections based on papers and data, which you sadly seem almost never to manage, and if you do quote someone or something kindly specify at least one or two points in what you are recommending, and why you like them” (TS)

    At first, I find this response unbelievable; but then when I contemplate gutless leaders who decide the most appropriate response to the current crisis is gatekeeping and controlling putative “wild cards”, it makes sense. Is this too unintelligible TS? What on earth can I possibly mean? Whatever you do, don’t, please don’t contemplate how what I just said relates to current events.

    Look, MacDonald has nailed you on how your responses in this thread are isomorphic to the tactics of the other side. And you simply go on, continuing to feign incomprehension or ignore salient points. I have made my points crystal clear; example, what is it about “synthetic” that needs to be further explained to you?

    And your scientific hero Martel LIED on an important technical point concerning PCR to set up one of those famous “impossibility barriers” that you appear to find so endearing.

    Alas, you are so impossibly obtuse in this thread that I’m forced to play the ace card. (Reluctantly? I honestly don’t know.) In the “great debate” between Peter Duesberg and Perth Group there is a probability argument. Do you have any idea what it is? Which party’s reasoning was more rigorous? Why many observers have concluded that PD lost the whole thing on the basis of the Perthian response?

    Above I called for a cease fire. F**k that. It’s worldview warfare, all against all, and why should “dissidents” be exempt from World War IV. All scientists who continue to support toxic biotechnology in any of its manifestations should be impeached. Let the games continue.

    (My lawyer just informed me to make it clear that I’m NOT talking about personal attacks of any kind.)

  166. Nick Naylor Says:

    “But what exactly is the alternative explanation offered by Perth or anybody else for the claims of the $100 billion establishment that they reliably clone and sequence the elusive HIV Virus in later ie more recent years than 1983-4? That they are lying? Presumably not. That they are mistaking one thing A for another thing B? OK, if so, then let’s have that accusation in a form that the average news reader can follow. What is A, and what is B, and how and why did they get away with the mistake once the Perth group pointed it out?”

    I guess that’s impossible TS, since you should by now be able to tell me, with all the resources you’ve collected here, why a quasispecies can’t be a lentivirus. This particulat dissonance can only be understood via biochemistry, which in your case requires interviews with practicing biochemists to get to the bottom of the issue. But due diligence seems to be beyond the ken of modern journalism since, of course, there’s no time …

    TS, again you insist that I repeat myself. It is the essence of the psych-out tactics of the other side, what you’re doing! Your questions have been answered, since presumably an ‘average person’ (whatever the hell THAT means) can comprehend the idea of an illusionist’s trick. especially as popularized in the movies The Illusionist and The Prestige.

    As far as the cDNA clone itself, the metaphors techne and ontos are consistent with the illusionism that’s been pulled off precisely because the genius Gallo salvaged cancer virology by “inventing” a $100 billion gold mine. Now, what is it about recombinant DNA reliably (of course!) produced by the cloning technique from different fragments of rearranged endogenous DNA as a result of the artifice cell culturing that still eludes you? Are you saying that these topics, DNA, cloning and the culturing of cells are not covered in newspapers? That people don’t know that cell cultures are not organisms found in the natural biosphere? That recombinant DNA has never been in the news, even (gasp) the source of another controversy right at the time we transitioned to the AIDS era? But now, of course, I’m getting too close to that dreaded, blasphemous conspiracy theory so … enough …

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1316 access attempts in the last 7 days.