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?

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.

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

What a snide, mean-spirited remark.

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.))

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.))

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.))

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

What scientific point was addressed?

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.

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.

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.

Please answer.

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

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

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

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

And here we are when grown up to double size:

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.