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---

Legally blind:

Judge turned against the Perth pair, threw out the baby with the bathwater

With Perth hobbled, perhaps conventional dissidents will be heard next time

Why Judge Sulan likes Gallo and we like John Moore

judge.jpgNews reports of the Adelaide judgement are coming through now, and they show the basis of Judge Sulan’s decision to disallow the appeal of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, against being jailed for having sex with three women without informing them that he carries antibodies against HIV, a virus which according to the original papers of Robert Gallo in 1984 does not cause AIDS (not to mention that how such antibodies could be transmitted sexually is another unanswered question).

Quite simply, it is his contempt for the independent scholars from Perth.

Both in the media and in his comments, the two decent and thoughtful witnessess for the defense from the Perth Group are being trashed mercilessly for their challenges to orthodoxy, which the judge rates as foolish and inexpert. Their reputation is now mud. Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos is quoted on her forthright willingness to sleep with an HIV positive man as if she was some kind of gang bang:

‘HIV does not exist’ appeal thrown out

By Todd Cardy

April 27, 2007 05:56pm

A HIV-positive man convicted for having unprotected sex with three women has lost an appeal, after a South Australian judge rejected defence claims the virus does not exist.

Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, was convicted on three counts of endangering life last January after one of the women, a mother of two, became infected with HIV.

Defence lawyers launched an appeal calling two Perth medical researchers – Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Valendar Turner who testified in the South Australian Court of Appeal that the virus did not exist and could not be sexually transmitted.

The two AIDS-dissidents are members of the Perth Group, founded by Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos, that believes HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

Justice John Sulan today dismissed the witnesses’ testimony, saying the pair lacked credibility and were advocates for a cause rather than independent experts.

He said the evidence that HIV existed was compelling and he rejected the application for a re-trial.

“I am satisfied that no jury would conclude that there is any doubt that the virus HIV exists,” he said in his judgment.

“I consider no jury would be left in any doubt that HIV is the cause of AIDS or that it is sexually transmissible.”

Justice Sulan said Ms Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, a physicist who works at the Royal Perth Hospital, relied upon opinions of others, which she often took out of context and misinterpreted.

He said claims that HIV testing methods were flawed were unfounded and the virus had been thoroughly studied by international experts.

Parenzee’s application for leave to appeal his conviction was the first time that the existence of HIV/AIDS had been tested in an Australian court.

The hearing spanned more than a year with controversy lining much of the witness testimony.

Under earlier cross-examination, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos was asked by the prosecution if she would have unprotected vaginal sex with a HIV-positive man.

“Any time,” she replied.

In other testimony, Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos declared that Africa did not have an AIDS epidemic because HIV did not exist and efforts to curb the spread of the virus were merely political stunts.

To counter the claims, the prosecution called eight HIV experts including AIDS research pioneer Professor Robert Gallo.

Prof Gallo, who was one of the scientists who discovered AIDS in the early 1980s and linked HIV as the cause of the disease, testified via video-link from his home in Bethesda, Massachusetts.

He told the court the Perth Group members was misguided, inappropriate and delusional.

Parenzee was remanded in custody to be sentenced at a later date.

The bottom line is that the Perth Group pair made such a poor impression with their claim the virus didn’t exist that the Judge dismissed their authority and, unfortunately, any other arguments levelled against the HIV∫AIDS meme which no doubt took root in his brain many years ago.

It is unfortunate for Parenzee that his home is Australia. The defenders and promoters of HIV∫AIDS must have been delighted when they heard that the only defense witnesses appearing from the critics’ camp to undermine their cause were the two key figures of the nearby Perth Group.

They must have seen that as soon as the Perth pair started attacking the existence of the virus, the otherwise totally unpersuasive paradigm which is now an ideological given of government policy, charity, and culture around the world would get a free pass.

A better idea

Defense counsel Kevin Borick would have done better to arrange a video transmission from Berkeley to match the one from Bethesda, where Gallo testified by satellite. The judge valued hands on science as a qualification, and Duesberg is a classic lab retrovirologist.

For new arrivals to this disputed realm, we refer to the distinguished Berkeley scientist Peter Duesberg, who but for his personal integrity would now have a Nobel in hand for his priority in cancer research, and whose repeated demonstrations in peer reviewed journals that the claims of HIV∫AIDS scientists do not accord with the scientific literature of the field, including the studies which the leading scientists themselves carry out, are a lot harder to dismiss than the Perth Group’s claim that HIV does not exist despite its genetic cloning and different strains.

But perhaps Judge Sulan would dismiss Duesberg, and his repeated demonstrations in peer reviewed journals that the claims of HIV∫AIDS scientists do not accord with the scientific literature of the field, as insufficiently hands on as far as HIV is concerned.

So much for science critics

judgecartoon.jpegAfter all, he appears to have no respect whatsoever for independent examination of the scientific literature by attentive outsiders. This is how he dismisses Valendar Turner’s knowledge, despite his publications in peer reviewed journals:

His opinions are based on reading scientific literature, studying of scientific literature, and spending a considerable amount of time thinking.

That a Supreme Court judge can be so naive, and condemn the very process he lives by, is an embarrassment to the judiciary of Down Under, not to mention the entire nation.

Silver lining to Perth defeat

While the Judge’s contempt is a poor reward for their efforts to save humanity from despair over HIV, and we are sorry for them personally, a Perth retreat from the courts may be a good thing for the more conventional cause of correcting the science of HIV∫AIDS.

There has always been a danger that the Perth Group’s anachronistic and increasingly foolish claim that HIV does not exist would distract from the contradictions of the paradigm based on current scientific literature and label all dissidents as crackpot. Now it has happened.

The judge appears to have decided early that the Perth claim was unfounded and out of date (which it is now that genetic cloning and sequencing of HIV is a commonplace around the world) and that the credentials of the Perth pair were fatally flawed by their lack of hands on experience in the field.

I have found that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Turner are not experts in the subject matter upon which they have given evidence. I have concluded that the witnesses called by the DPP are experts.

206 Because the witnesses called by the applicant are not expert, the opinion evidence which they gave is not admissible. I have noted above that the evidence given on whether HIV has been proved to exist, whether HIV is sexually transmissible, and whether it causes AIDS is opinion evidence. The finding that the witnesses for the applicant are not experts, and thus are not qualified to give expert opinion evidence, is, in my view, a sufficient basis upon which to refuse the application for permission to appeal.

judgecartoon.jpegSo he decided there was nothing in the rest of their claims, since Bob Gallo was so much more prominent in the science, famous and persuasive, and therefore reliable. The judge fawned on Gallo and the other mainstream authorities produced by the prosecution, as his comments on Gallo show:

When he gave his evidence he was forthright. At times, he was impatient with propositions that were being put to him. Mr Borick QC is critical of the manner in which Professor Gallo gave his evidence. He submits that Professor Gallo was not entirely frank and that his aggressive attitude towards the questioner was due to the fact that his opinions lacked credibility.

197 I reject that submission. I consider that Professor Gallo was a frank, forthright witness. Professor Gallo has been recognised throughout the world for his work. He is a pre-eminent expert in the field of virus identification and treatment. I accept his evidence and his opinions. I accept his evidence that the debate about HIV, whether it causes AIDS and whether it is sexually transmissible by heterosexual vaginal sexual intercourse, is a debate that was completed by the mid-1980s. I accept his evidence that the witnesses called by the applicant have misused material in support of their argument that HIV has not been proved to exist.

Here come de judge

All this can be seen recorded in detail in his lengthy and illuminating 82 page judgement, the Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Sulan now available to the world for study. Reading through it we have to say it seems unlikely that the Perth Group will survive this lengthy public demolition of their reputation by an inattentive judge prejudiced in favor of power.

In one way this is a pity since they have done good work on the fundamental reasons why AIDS patients should suffer immune decline in the absence of any ascertainable influence from HIV. But their distracting claim that HIV has not been effectively isolated is a stale red herring whose odor attaches itself to all critics of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, a claim which is genuinely unproven and contradicted by the scientific literature.

Peter Duesberg and other thoughtful scientists who can see that the paradigm is unjustified do not need to be associated with unprofessional quarrels with premises they do not challenge. It was always a danger that the Perth Group would break into the headlines and put paid to any chance that the valid scientific objections to the paradigm would be taken seriously by those outside the field.

Not to mention that Duesberg himself powerfully, cogently and conclusively dismissed the Perth Group’s reasoning ten years ago (see Virusmyth’s The Missing Virus section) on the existential issue, even as he respected their many contributions on other fronts, including the real nature of African AIDS, inaccuracies of HIV testing, and misconceptions about hemophilia and AIDS. In fact, he gave them the first two chapters of the scholarly volume that he edited, AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced, in 1996, for their invited expert reviews of HIV∫AIDS research distortions.


******************************************
SPECIAL NOTE: The Perth Group deserves respect, in the opinion of the editorial staff of NAR, and the strictures of Judge Sulan are ignorant calumny. The Perth Group’s identification of oxidative stress as one key mechanism in the kind of immune deficiency now labeled HIV∫AIDS is notable as one of the earliest contributions made (published in 1988, after more than five years research) to a correct diagnosis of AIDS and its underlying mechanism, a solution derailed in 1984 by the unfounded and still undemonstrated claim of Gallo that HIV was the culprit. Their analysis pointing out that oxidative stress caused by drugs, malnutrition and multiple infections can harm sensitive T cells is justified by much mainstream literature since, and has been endorsed by Luc Montagnier in his book “Virus”.

It should also be pointed out that their critique of Montagnier’s original experiments detecting the presence of HIV in the blood of AIDS patients (they said that he had failed to purify the virus) was endorsed in the Adelaide court room by none other than the satellite image of Bob Gallo himself, perhaps glad to draw attention away from his own lab sins which are legion (he is famous for making a fool of himself with contaminations of cultures). and Montagnier has conceded it. But this basis for challenging the very existence of the Virus grew out of date as labs all over the world cultured the Virus, duplicated its sequencing, and even distinguished between strains of the 9 kilobase wisp of RNA even as they failed to show its harmful effects.

The Perth Group would have been better off defending their analysis of the mechanism of immune deficiency against Gallo’s groundless challenge by pointing out, for example, that not only was finding HIV in 36%of AIDS patients, and antibodies to it in 88%, screamingly unconvincing, but the presence of cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr virus and herpes virus in approaching 100% of patient blood samples indicated a theoretical bias on the part of Gallo that science cannot explain. All this is well exposed in Robert Root-Bernstein’s Rethinking AIDS, Chapter four.

Indeed the Group made very sharp points along these lines in the first paper, A Critical Analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS Hypothesis, they contributed to the Duesberg’s collection, AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced (1996). For example, they point out the little appreciated fact that Gallo’s original T cell culture of HIV was in a leukemia cell line, HT, which already happened to have the property of forming occasional giant cells with fused nuclei. This Gallo then interpreted as a cytopathic effect of HIV, his only evidence of supposed HIV cell killing in the one Science paper of his 1984 broadside to supposedly prove that HIV could kill cells.. “The virus positive cultures consistently showed a high proportion of round giant cells containing numerous nuclei (syncytia)”. But the syncytia was already happening before the presence of the harmless Deadly Virus.
*******************************************

Now the loss of credibility due to arguing the Virus doesn’t exist has happened as feared in a court of law in Australia and sent an unfortunate man innocent of causing harm back to jail, because it meant that the very obvious proven fact in the literature (pace Nancy Padian, who now denies what she demonstrated) that HIV is effectively not transmissible in sex between heterosexuals could not be established in the Judge’s now closed mind.

But Kevin Borick, his lawyer who made the error of placing his bets on the Perth argument, says he will appeal anyway on other grounds, according to reports. And if this decision now fences off the Perth Group spoiler effect, it is all to the good.

Misdirected insults

blindbreast.jpegHowever, let’s not agree with the court in rejecting their case on the grounds that they are outsiders to the field of HIV∫AIDS without practical experience of the virus. This is naive if not absurd. Judge Sulan has no idea it seems of how often outsiders come up with advances in a field, especially on a theoretical level. His jeers at Papadopulos-Eleopulos along these lines are silly:

Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos has no practical experience. She has never worked with patients who are said to be infected with HIV, or with any virus. She has never treated or diagnosed patients who have viruses. She has never worked in laboratories or conducted research. She has no practical experience.

133 She has given evidence on the topics of virology, immunology, epidemiology, microbiology and microscopy. She has no practical experience and she has never worked in any of the areas.

134 Although Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos demonstrated a superficial understanding of a number of the areas, I consider that her knowledge is limited to her reading. She has what one might describe as a textbook understanding of the science of viruses, but she has no depth of knowledge or understanding and she simply relies upon written material. She did not demonstrate any understanding or knowledge similar to that demonstrated by the witnesses called by the DPP.

135 I conclude that she does not have expertise in the various disciplines in which expertise is required. In my opinion, she is not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it has been established that it causes AIDS. Nor has she expertise to express opinions about whether the virus is transmissible. Nor is she qualified to express opinions about the tests that have been developed to diagnose the virus.

136 Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions. In my view, no weight could be given to her evidence. That is a relevant factor in considering whether permission to appeal should be granted.

137 Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos lacks independence. She is an advocate for a cause. She chooses to rely upon opinions of others which she often takes out of context and misinterprets. She lacks objectivity. If faced with evidence which does not support her views, she simply refuses to acknowledge it, or dismisses it without any basis for so doing. Examples of her refusal to acknowledge evidence which does not support her views include her response to the epidemiological evidence which she says is not proof and which she dismisses as unreliable.[81]

Of course, he had the good lady in front of him, so for all we know she does give a poor impression in public. She certainly fails to speak very good English, according to the transcript, although Gallo’s grammatical structures are not much better. We suspect that if Judge Sulan had been able to see Gallo in person rather than on video he might have got a different impression, also.

Here is what he thought about Turner:

Dr Turner’s knowledge of the subject matter is limited to reading. He has no formal qualifications to give expert opinions about the virus. He has no practical experience in the treatment of viral diseases. He has no practical experience in the disciplines of virology, immunology or epidemiology.

143 His opinions are based on reading scientific literature, studying of scientific literature, and spending a considerable amount of time thinking.

144 I conclude that Dr Turner is not qualified to advance expert opinion about virus isolation, antibody tests, viral load tests, or sexual transmission of the virus. His knowledge of these subjects is limited to having read a number of publications. He relies entirely on his interpretation of various studies in the specialised disciplines of virology, epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, pathology or infectious diseases, in none of which he has qualifications beyond his medical degree. He has no practical experience, and has performed no research which has been published.

This is an extraordinarily clear statement that no one but insiders are qualified to read and understand the literature of a field. The Gallo-Fauci-Moore defense team must be chortling.

How rebels are handicapped

blindjudge.jpegIn this way, the task of critics who detect a flaw in conventional wisdom is made difficult. The first accusation is that they don’t know what they are talking about, because they don’t have the inside knowledge needed to make a good decision. If for example you disagree with George W. Bush’s upcoming decision to drop bombs on Iran, the first counter is, you are not in possession of secret information about how close they are to making a nuclear weapon.

Then it is also a fairly clear principle in cases where independent scholars and critics tilt at mainstream shibboleths that the critics are likely to be eccentrics in personality and behavior, and the defenders at the top of the establishment much more acceptable in their smooth conformity to the conventions of dressa and behavior, since that is partly how they got to the top of the pyramid and stay there. The critics, meanwhile often have all the earmarks of the crackpot, or at least can easily be painted as such.

That is why we thank Destiny for the existence of John P. Moore, one of the greatest assets of the movement to reexamine HIV∫AIDS science in his non conformist behavior in speech and writing, and in the inaccurate and ad hominem style of his website AIDSTruth.org

Unlike Anthony Fauci of NIAID, he is neither stylish in dress nor smooth in behavior. He and Robert Gallo, the ebullient roguish initiator of this gigantic mess, have in common the tendency to let loose verbally or in print and on line (in the case of Moore) if they get a chance.

Quick way to tell who’s right on HIV∫AIDS

For a change, we have colorful individuals on both sides of this debate, and that is as it should be. For after all, these are disputes about scientific theory and interpretation, and the quality of the ideas that are expressed are highly dependent on the qualities of the man or woman expressing them.

In fact, we have often thought it is not really necessary for any outsider who comes upon this debate to read very far into it to know who is almost certain to be right.

All one has to do is line up Robert Gallo, Anthony Fauci, Mark Wainberg and John Moore and compare them with Peter Duesberg, Harvey Bialy, Celia Farber and Rebecca Culshaw.

It would be pretty clear even to a distinguished but mentally myopic, meme ridden, power worshipping Australian Supreme Court judge who are the salesmen heavily invested in the paradigm, and who are the independent minded, public spirited, self sacrificial critics.

Addition: While we were posting this a very fine Comment by the inimitable MacDonald has been attached to the previous post, but is highly relevant here for its deft exposure of the Judge’s bias against the Perth Group as revealed in his Reasons for Decision, in which his Reasons for Bias against the Perth Group are in fact, as MacDonald aptly points out, much better as Reasons to Reject the Testimony of Robert Gallo, to whom they apply in spades. (Later moved to Comments under this post. – Ed.)

121 Responses to “Legally blind:”

  1. marcel Says:

    I posted several months ago that, brilliant as they are, Eleni and Val did not have the right credentials to impress a judge. Val is an emergency room physician and Eleni has only a M.Sc. degree (routinely described in the media as a B.Sc. degree, of course). I said that they should bring on other Perthians with more impeccable credentials, such as Papadimitriou, Maniotis and Alfonso. Apparently they didn’t do this, relying only on Eleni and Val.

    Why o why do we not use as witnesses the many hundreds of scientists and doctors we have who DO have impeccable, relevant and impressive credentials? Why not Duesberg, Charles Thomas, Gabor-Miklos, Strohman, Rubin, Rasnick, deHarven, Bialy, Maniotis, Margulis and many many more that we have on our List page.

    Had the attorney called any of them to the witness stand, it would have been far more difficult for the judge to dismiss our point of view as being that of unqualified scientists. But, he probably would have ruled against the appeal anyway. Because he was ordered to, I believe. I think the judge’s opinion was not even written by him, it was written by whatever task force the CIA or whoever has assigned to this matter. The fix was in probably from day one.

    Too many of us view Aids in isolation from all the other stuff that’s going on in the world, and that’s a mistake. If you follow all the censored information that you can’t read in your newspaper but can read at places like globalresearch.ca, you understand that all around us, the vise is tightening on individual liberty, freedom of information and freedom from government abuse of power. The US govt has already made plans to subvert the internet and has come very close to describing internet dissidents and activists as “terrorists.” With the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts, Bush and his successor Hillary (who has already been elected, though few people realize it), have the power to declare any citizen an “enemy combatant” for any reason, without having to produce proof, and arrange for the person’s “disappearance,” i.e., arrest and prolonged detention without legal representation.

    All of this impacts on us because we really are quite a threat to national security, which is a euphemism that really means, “the security of the privileged elites.” The Hiv theory cannot fall, because if it did, most established power would fall with it as the fallout of an enraged world populace was felt, demanding justice and accountability. It wouldn’t just be Aids scientists who would face angry calls for punishment, it would be whole governments. All the institutions of authority, from the scientists (not just Aids scientists, all scientists would be tainted by association) to the teacher who indoctrinates children in school with official “truths”, to the UN, the EU, Unicef, and the national governments who supported the deception, would lose much of their credibility and thus their authority. People would start to see that authorities lie to them all the time, and a general rebellion might begin to snowball, derailing the New World Order Globalization Express Train, threatening not just new, more just and honest directions for government, but punishment and seizure of ill-gotten gains from the authorities who have lied to and abused the public for so long.

    Contrary to popular belief reinforced by Hollywood and the platitudes we are fed in the educational system, a judge’s real job is not to deliver justice, it is to protect property and the powerful, and in the case of institutions like the Supreme Court, to assist the power elite in their social engineering and indoctrination programs.

    Any court trial we undertake is likely to have the same outcome. We aren’t fighting scientists, we are fighting Almighty Power. We aren’t debating observable facts, we are challenging the legitimacy of authority. Scientific facts have absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s all about Power and Wealth, and Who Rules. The only way we can fight power is to become powerful ourselves. There are ways to do that as I have detailed in other posts.

  2. marcel Says:

    You know, we can turn this thing around and make it explode in the gloating Aids establishment’s face.

    All we have to do is publicize to people that what happened to Parenzee can happen to you, too, if you get tested.

    It’s high time for a “DON’T GET TESTED!” campaign.

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Refuse the HV test…

    Good points Marcel but as far as the ‘It’s all a CIA plot’ goes… Marcel, really. As the judgement shows in detail, the decision was made by a very smallminded, provincial and not very clever man who swallowed fallacies whole because he is dazzled by his proximity to the great and fails to detect that they are emitting a noxious cloud of scientific sounding BS and they are fundamentally as logic-challenged as he is, and as incapable of realizing that their beliefs are partly grounded on enormous inconsistencies.

    None of these actors in the grand drama are knowing crooks on the conscious level and they are not part of some vast plot to betray the populace worldwide. They are simply clever men and women who are partly fools who believe in fallacious hooey inconsistent with their own scientific literature and with common understanding and experience. What is it about this that you don’t understand? Is it really so difficult for you to accept that despite high position most of the elite and elected cannot think very well, because they are part of a system which is not conspiratorial but formed by common elements of human nature such as ambition, vanity, conformity, and drives for security and comfort, embodied in a social structure erected by such forces controlled and effected by political skills and control of resources.

    The former fuel the latter which forms the whole without any plan or conspiracy, as far as we can tell, it is just a natural outcome of all the individual actions. Saying it is all a plot is like saying that a hurricane comes about as a result of a butterfly flapping its wings. There is no control system in place, and it is far too difficult to contruct one in the absence of Nazi level dictatorial violence. All that is happening is that one man who occupies a certain position is led to think and rule a certain way by what he thinks he is told and understands about the case and how other people will react to what he does. To say he is controlled by some vast conspiracy is pure imagination, about as realistic as any other kind of religion, as far as we can see.

    You don’t need a conspiracy for things like this to happen, do you? They are surely a natural part of society where acquisition, ambition, vanity, and other selfish drives are still better at elevating men and women in society than idealism and intelligence, which may win in the end as civilization advances but at the moment still tend to remove those that embody those qualities to the periphery, as happened in this case, which demonstrates the process perfectly. We have to work to correct this situation by seeing it for what it is. Such people deserve your strongest practical support, not that you blame some vast conspiracy and divert your goodwill and encouragement of their efforts into building a fantastical mental structure, which in this case is imitating their enemies, who live by just such a grand fantasy that they have sold to the world.

    Sorry if this view doesn’t seem persuasive to you, but it is hard to see why it doesn’t unless you have some concrete evidence you are withholding from us which will flip our world view. Perhaps you think George Bush or Anthony Fauci controls Sulan with a phone call, but we doubt it. Perhaps you think that the judge just may have had a little help of some kind in working on his judgement, but it is hard to imagine how or from whom he got it without breaking the rules. As far as we can see his judgement doesn’t seem to be produced by anything more than his own limitations and desire to uphold the status quo, which is natural to all judges. That and the fact that he is out of his depth on the science and credits the testimony of witnesses who come in unifrom with medals tinkling far more easily than independent critics who simply read the literature and “sit and think”, or in other words evaluate it. To him the latter are just crackpot delusionists who are almost as out of their depth as he is and will lead us into error, as most cranks do with their disproofs of Einstein etc. You predicted that yourself rather brilliantly, amd you deserve credit for the cynicism, since it proved out. But you didn’t really know that judge was so limited that he wouldn’t see the fallacies in the arguments he was given. Most of the world doesn’t see them either. It believes in a sex disease caused by a virus that shows no signs of being infectious between the sexes, which isn’t found in patients, whose presence (prevalence) in the US population remained at the same unchanging level as the disease rose and fell over two decades, and which afflicts heterosexuals abroad but only gays at home. Of course, one did hope for more from a legal mind in an elevated position in a major Western country whose job is to review logic and evidence, but human failings intervened.

  4. MacDonald Says:

    The judge’s own words can be found here courtesy of David Crowe:

    http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm

    It is a lengthy document with no pictures, so the tirelessly labouring blo’ host will probably not mind if we lighten his burden a bit by giving a few salient point(er)s relating to first half of judge Sulan’s deliberations, the half that deals with the Perth Group, primarily Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos …

    It has long been speculated what kind of homework the wise judge Sulan would engage in as preparation for his ruling in the Parenzee case. Now that the result is out, we will in the interest of good taste forbear to go for any of the obvious puns on ‘kangaroo court’, but we do feel a congratulations to John Moore is in order: All the legal precedent waffling aside, the judge’s method of inquiry and deliberation remained the one first named by NAR’s prescient blo’ host when he coined the term “ask John”.

    Accordingly, the judge thought it a major blow to Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos’ credibility that she in her evidence had relied on Nancy Padian’s study which, as we all know, demonstrated 000.0000 HIV transmission in the largest study ever of discordant couples.

    Judge Sulan drew attention to the circumstance that Ms.Padian had published a statement on Prof. JP Moore’s AIDStruth.orgy to the effect that the 000.0000 seroconversion rate in her study clearly supported the indisputable fact that 80% of HIV transmission worldwide is heterosexual.

    Apparently impressed with this line of argument, the judge repeated the point in relation to Rodriguez et al, who have recently published one of the major milestones in AIDS Inc’s. awkward back pedalling on viral load – CD4 count – progression to AIDS correlation.

    Rodriguez has also issued a political manifesto on AIDStruth.orgy and elsewhere regarding his latest study, demonstrating that only through statistical trickery, as exposed here,

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/darin_c_brown_f_1.html

    is it possible to claim significant correlation between viral load and CD4 loss.
    In his statement, Rodriguez explains in no uncertain terms, and with the straightest of faces, that his study does not lessen HIV’s role in CD4 cell loss, it merely awards ‘co-factors’ a larger one.

    Judge Sulan found it highly significant that Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos had omitted to inform the court of the rather obvious fact that the authors of the studies referenced by her do not agree with her and Valendar Turner’s interpretation of their results – and worse still that she was not a regular reader of Moore’s AIDStruth site where these things tend to appear.

    It was probably a mistake under the circumstances that Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos had not mentioned Padian’s and Rodriguez’ a priori refutations of all possible alternative readings of their data, although she or Valendar Turner is nowhere mentioned by name in the various statements. Still: “Your Honour, if the authors of the mainstream literature and the Perth Group were in agreement as to the ultimate interpretation of the data, there would have been no case to judge, would there now?”

    The judge also had questions concerning Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos’ status as ‘expert’ witness, perhaps legitimate such. It clearly weakened this aspect of the Defence that real ‘mainstream’ heavyweights, like Duesberg and Mullis only received peripheral mentioning and were not brought in as witnesses.

    The judge furthermore thought it went against the Perth group that they were (supposedly) knowledgeable in all the different areas pertaining to HIV science, whereas the prosecution experts, including Robert Gallo, constantly had to plead ignorance and defer to somebody else when cross-examined on various issues. Limited scope of knowledge and perspective in the wise judge Sulan’s opinion indicates real expertise.

    Ahh how blissful is not the state of scientific fragmentation?

    Be all this as it may, judge Sulan has clearly asked John and received answer, because the reverend judge himself turns out to be a competent prosecution expert who needs no help from Padian or Rodriguez in evaluating the merit of statements pertaining to areas of specialized expert knowledge. Here is but a part of the well tutored judge’s own testimony, ready for publishing at John’s orgy, were it not the case it is already found there word for word:

    120 The two instances [Padian, Rodriguez] to which I have referred demonstrate that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos is not objective in her evidence. She commences with a proposition which she then seeks to justify by reliance on material which, when properly understood [by whom, the judge?] does not support the proposition.

    121 Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos propounds theories which are not supported by adequate scientific research or knowledge. She demonstrates an ability to read scientific literature but she has misused and misinterpreted much of the material upon which she seeks to rely. She takes statements out of context and then relies upon them to support conclusions which are not supported by the text. [according to whom, the judge?]

    122 Her evidence is littered with examples of misunderstandings, misinterpretation and denial of established scientific research. [according to whom, the judge? Notice the expert use of the word ‘denial’ – Accident?] In many instances she relies upon material which is outdated. She either deliberately fails to acknowledge or is not aware of the most recent scientific research that establishes that HIV exists and that, if untreated, will lead to the breakdown of the immune system.

    The so recently AIDS controversy ignorant judge has caught up admirably since he is now in a position to refer sweepingly and with great scientific authority to the ‘most recent research that establishes [retroactively?] that HIV exists and leads to a breakdown of the immune system’
    Perhaps it is the judge’s newfound scientific acumen which finally gives him the confidence to declare:

    Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions. In my view, no weight could be given to her evidence. That is a relevant factor in considering whether permission to appeal should be granted.

    Or did he simply ask John?

    In the same by now well known style, the last part of the first half of the document consists almost exclusively of judge Sulan pointing out the high rank and expert status of the prosecution witnesses, which for some reason entirely exempts them from the kind of close scrutiny of motives that earlier prompted this judgement:

    138 The evidence given by Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos about the Perth group demonstrates that she is promoting a cause. She is not independent. She is motivated to create a debate about her theory. The Perth Group will use whatever means available to promote that debate, including encouragement of persons such as the applicant, to promote their theories in courts of law.

    ‘The Perth Group will use whatever means available…’ These harsh words coming from the same person who found Robert Gallo to be a ‘frank, forthright witness’, whose words should be accepted at face value.

    Case closed.

  5. SimonDaniel Says:

    Firstly, I would like to point out that I was disappointed with the outcome of the Adelaide trial. I respect the position of the Perth Group and their argument that HIV has not been convincingly isolated. Despite having read Peter Duesberg’s argument to the contrary (which seems to be the best rebuttal available, certainly better than the evidence of the prosecution witnesses) I remain unconvinced.

    However, I am dismayed by the reaction of other commentators who, similarly disappointed with the trial result, have decided to label the judge as “naive”, “an embarassment” and “smallminded”, even going so far as to suggest that the decision was handed down by the CIA. This type of reaction is childish, emotional and speculative. It belongs in a conspiracy theory argument, not a rational debate.

    As an interested member of the public I have the luxury of being able to investigate what I choose, and then to form my opinions based on what I decide is relevant and convincing evidence. A Judge does not (and should not) have this luxury. He is obliged to take the qualifications of someone like Robert Gallo at face value, especially when there is no shortage of other, well qualified experts to back him up. Whereas I can say that I disagree with the expert opionions of Dr Gallo, the judge cannot easily do so without what he sees as sufficient justification – regardless of what his personal opinion might be.

    From this point of view I think the decision was fair in the legal sense. A scientific argument should be decided based on evidence and open, rational debate, not on consensus. However, it may be argued that the legal system should respect a consensus – it is reasonable to assume that a jury’s decision probably would reflect that consensus.

    Interestingly, the issue of whether HIV causes AIDS was only partially addressed in the trial, with Mr Borick QC even stating “The defence has not introduced and nor are we concerned with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS.” In light of the judge’s treatment of the Perth Group and their qualifications, this may leave the way clear for future legal efforts to focus explicitly on this question, and to present evidence from others whose qualifications are more difficult for the court to reject.

  6. Michael Says:

    Every Government governs strictly by the allowance and by the will and according to the beliefs of the majority of the governed. When one lives in a society where most people are fearfilled of invisible threats, and are mostly panicked germophobes, as we are in a society that mispercieves the supposedly constant threat of looming viral destructions such as Sars, Bird Flu, and AIDS, the electorate majority will only elect or listen to those they perceive as strong and who will fight against the invisible viral enemy.

    Further, such a germaphobic governed will only listen to or believe the scientist germaphobes who think as the governed do.

    When one lives in a world where most people do not have integrity, the electorate unwittingly consents to be governed by the non-integrous. The governed and the governing will only think, see, or believe what they mutually want to think, see, or believe. Most of these thoughts, beliefs, and ways of percieving are pre-programmed due to past and therefore current thinking and beliefs. The evolution of any of these factors does eventually evolve, but not nearly as fast as those on the leading edge of such changes of belief and perception would like them to.

    Could you imagine if any of the former presidents were to have stood up and declared that HIV did not cause AIDS and was a complete scam? There would have been riots enmasse in the streets. He would have been impeached, or assasinated!

    As such, Governments represent both the wisdom and the ignorance as well as the integrity or lack thereof of those that are governed. When governments fail to do so, they are soon replaced by those that will.

    The power of any government is, was, and always will be with the majority of the consenting governed according to their own beliefs. When these beliefs change, the government or governmental positions will soon do the same. It is all a process, not an event.

    So, unless any of you have something better you would like to be doing, we might as well just continue to enjoy the show!

  7. Robert Houston Says:

    Truthseeker has provided a well-balanced discussion of the Perth Group. As he points out, their emphasis on the supposed non-existence (or misidentification) of HIV seems rather outdated and stuck in the mid-1980s. To persist in this view today can be an embarassing Achille’s heel, as it’s rather easily disposed of by conventional medical officials, who can point to the widespread genetic sequencing and culturing of the virus and its various strains.

    On the other hand, the Perth Group has done superb analyses and reviews of many other aspects of AIDS, as can be found at their website, ThePerthGroup.com, and their section at Virusmyth.com. Since Eleni’s 1988 paper in Medical Hypotheses (rejected by Nature in 1986), the Perth Group has argued that oxidative stress is an underlying mechanism – produced by drugs, malnutrition, and multiple infections – which promotes undue apoptosis causing reduction of T4 lymphocytes in AIDS patients. After reading a later Perth paper published by the Pasteur Institute, Luc Montagnier himself adopted the same view of oxidative stress as fundamental to AIDS, edited a book on the subject, and propounded the theory in his book, Virus.

    There has been discussion in the comments regarding the naivete of the judge or conspiratorial influences determining his judgment. Whichever is correct, the fact is that there has been a general tendency – nearly a consistency – in the legal realm for judges to decide health issues in favor of the prevailing view of the medical establishment and to exclude evidence from unofficial sources. The issue has come up frequently in regard to cancer treatment, and in nearly all cases the judges will defer to the judgment of the medical powers that be – especially government health agencies. This means that there is little independence in the courts.

    I therefore agree with Marcel that under the circumstances it is dangerous to take an HIV test. The consequence can be 15 years in jail for a single unprotected dalliance. This despite the fact that knowing carriers of other STDs, such as syphillis and hepatitis B (both of which can have serious consequences) are having unprotected encounters commonly and with impunity. Such behavior is considered foolish and irresponsible, perhaps, but a matter for public health education rather than criminal prosecution.

  8. Truthseeker Says:

    Interestingly, the issue of whether HIV causes AIDS was only partially addressed in the trial, with Mr Borick QC even stating “The defence has not introduced and nor are we concerned with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS.” In light of the judge’s treatment of the Perth Group and their qualifications, this may leave the way clear for future legal efforts to focus explicitly on this question, and to present evidence from others whose qualifications are more difficult for the court to reject

    Thanks for noting this, SimonDaniel, it is an important point. Alas, it seems unlikely that this issue will ever be addressed by any court, since it is such a many sided dispute. It is hard enough to get some simple points through a bone headed judge’s skull, as we have just seen. Much better simply to demonstrate that the literature indicates so little virus in a HIV+ erson that it is very unlikely to be transmitted through conventional sex, and that the biggest studies indicate it is not conveyed in heterosexual sex at all. Mentioning that the virus may not exist is asking for a judge to view you as a crackpot, as Adelaide has proved. Mentioning that HIV may not cause AIDS at all is also likely to be dismissed out of hand, and everything else with it.

    A judge has to be not only clever but also worldly and openminded, and even if he is all these things he instinctively prefers to take refuge in conventional wisdom, especially in science. The ruling paradigm in any science tends to be the equivalent of precedence in a judge’s mind. That is why the Perth Group is the worst choice for witnesses for the defense, and why there are problems calling even Peter Duesberg, since the prosecution may be able to paint him as a mere “denialist” despite his prominence, just as Kary Mullis was painted a “denialist” in the Adelaide case, to get rid of Mullis’s endorsement of AIDS critics after his letter resulted in a special hearing, when it was put together with a private admission by a prosecution witness that he felt the theory of transmission and its dangers was questionable.

    As an interested member of the public I have the luxury of being able to investigate what I choose, and then to form my opinions based on what I decide is relevant and convincing evidence. A Judge does not (and should not) have this luxury. He is obliged to take the qualifications of someone like Robert Gallo at face value, especially when there is no shortage of other, well qualified experts to back him up. Whereas I can say that I disagree with the expert opionions of Dr Gallo, the judge cannot easily do so without what he sees as sufficient justification – regardless of what his personal opinion might be.

    This seems unconvincing to us. In this case the job of the judge was to arbitrate in a conflict over the scientific facts of the case, since if science actually said that the act of endangerment of a sex partner, which the law forbade and which the defendant was found guilty of, was as a practical matter impossible, and the conviction based on an act which could not be an endangerment after all, then the appeal against conviction should go forward (see the judgement for the exact issue in legal terms).

    The judge arbitrated by evaluating the arguments of both sides as to the validity of the science, and he wrote a lengthy judgement explaining his reasoning, which was based mostly in the credibility of the witnesses on either side in his mind, but also was influenced by evaluating their points, it seems clear. As MacDonald perceptively joked, the judge became an authority in his own eyes with his “newfound scientific acumen”:

    The so recently AIDS controversy ignorant judge has caught up admirably since he is now in a position to refer sweepingly and with great scientific authority to the ‘most recent research that establishes [retroactively?] that HIV exists and leads to a breakdown of the immune system’… Perhaps it is the judge’s newfound scientific acumen etc

    The outcome of the case was properly founded on the ability and willingness of the judge to evaluate the claim of the defense that the science of HIV∫AIDS showed there could be no endangerment, and we were glad to see it in action. It was just unfortunate that he wrongly assessed the credibility of the two sides, and because he developed contempt for the Perth witnesses didn’t sufficiently question and examine what he accepted as good reasoning and evidence from the paradigm defenders to see the fallacies in what they were saying. If he was more worldly he might have realized that the minor stars of a professional field are quite capable of selling him a bill of goods especially if they believe it themselves, and the blind may lead the blind.

    Perhaps it is understandable that a Supreme Court Judge in what is a provincial capital city in global terms does not understand how the billions now swilling around in the HIV∫AIDS bucket in the US and internationally can drown the kind of good science practiced by people who feel science is a vocation and not a profession, and who question basic assumptions. With Walter Isaacson’s book on Einstein just out, and the author on CSpan etc expounding it in his irritatingly People magazine manner, one wonders if an Einstein could get anywhere these days.

  9. Dan Says:

    It seems apparent that some of us were optimistic that this could have been a major turning point. Whether the Perth Group got involved, or other rethinkers with PhD’s, this was not going to be the time and place for an about-face for AIDS.

    A rethinker friend rightly remarked a couple of days ago that we didn’t get into this mess via logic. Unfortunately, we won’t get out if it via logic, either. People aren’t rational beings. We’re capable of being rational, but we’re not rational by nature. We’re emotional.

    Focusing on reason, logic and rationality would seem like a good idea, that in anticipation of this house of cards falling down, would give many of us a deep feeling of satisfaction that human beings are essentially smart animals. Not so. The mere fact that the AIDS paradigm has existed for twenty-plus years is good evidence that humans aren’t terribly smart and we do run on emotion.

    For those of us who truly are interested in resolution regarding this issue, changing tack is essential.

  10. marcel Says:

    TS, it can be both. You can have all the human foibles of ambition, self-delusion, etc., at work in the Hiv theory, and you can also have conspiracy going on. Indeed, I think you do have both going on, far more of the former than the latter.

    But since Clinton named Hiv-Aids a “national security issue”, that automatically involves the CIA. Do you really think that what concerns our leaders is the destabilization of Africa caused by all those Aids deaths, and the result this might have on US desires to exploit and enslave Africans? I think what they are really worried about is the Hiv lie unravelling, and that’s why it’s a national security issue. And if that’s true, that means that the CIA would be working to prop up the Hiv theory wherever it is threatened. And, I shouldn’t have to tell you, there is NOTHING that they won’t do in pursuit of their goals. Just do a little research on what the agency has done in the world, and the tens of millions of people they have tortured, killed and enslaved.

    Tampering with a judge is child’s play for them. But I’m also not saying it was the CIA, it could have been the NSC, or just the Medical Mafia that got to him.

    MacDonald gives good evidence that the judge was talking to John Peemore. Why do you insist that Sulan’s thoughts were his alone?

    As for trials, remember what happened to Kim Marie’s attempt to litigate? Her attorneys kept quitting the case. You don’t think somebody was working behind the scenes on that, bribing and/or threatening them? (I keep forgetting, you’re kinda naive)

    Anyway, ain’t dat a great idea for a “don’t get tested” campaign using the Adelaide result (and other examples) to scare people away from testing?

  11. Dan Says:

    Truthseeker has provided a well-balanced discussion of the Perth Group

    I disagree.

    But, he’s under no obligation to provide a discussion, well-balanced or not, about the Perth Group.

    Unfortunately, I don’t get the impression that NAR and YBYL are “team players” in resolving the deadly AIDS paradigm. They seem to be team players only for those whose natural curiousity and questioning minds cease being curious and questioning when confronted with the Perth Group’s analysis of HIV’s existence. I find this to be disturbing, and counterproductive to ending the “AIDS” nightmare. It reminds me much of the orthodoxy’s relentless push to keep us all believing in the bad science of AIDS…the “don’t look over there”, or “don’t question that” way of doing business.

    For many of us lowly lay-folk, the Perth Group’s analyses of HIV/AIDS have definitely helped us to unravel this knot. So has Duesberg’s.

    Maybe I’ve been naive in thinking to what extent we’re all in this together…working toward the same goal. It’s clear to me that we’re not working toward the same goal, not even in general terms. It’s saddening. I thought we wanted to see the end of this deadly, homophobic, racist, medical nightmare. We do, as long as we marginalize the Perth Group and don’t question HIV’s existence.

  12. MartinDKessler Says:

    I had read the Perth Groups papers reprinted in Continuum Magazine several years ago. I was impressed with them because they looked at the fundamental aspects of what (retro)viruses were and what is involved in performing viral isolation. They combed through hundreds perhaps thousands of existing “HIV research” to find relevant studies. It got me to thinking that the idea of how all of the various dissident scientists and journalists have been writing about the subject. If HIV doesn’t exist, no one can be infected with what they were told they were when they received a “positive result”. Even if “HIV” did exist, the tests employed have never been validated. So when I read the dissident literature I look for consistency of scientific point of view: Knowing that none of the tests have been validated, it’s senseless to talk about who’s infected and who’s not.

  13. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald’s irrelevant comments and disrespect for the blog host have been removed. If he wishes to justify the position of the Perth Group’s position on the proper isolation of the virus and its consequences for whether HIV causes AIDS or not, he can do so politely, and intelligibly. This is a site where the object is to exchange civilized comment on paradigm challenges and not to indulge ad hominem jibes, unless extremely witty. It is a reference site, to which others may come in the expectation that the information and enlightenment can be accessed without disturbances of that kind.

    Unfortunately, I don’t get the impression that NAR and YBYL are “team players” in resolving the deadly AIDS paradigm.

    This blog, Dan, is completely independent of YBYL, which we consider a very mixed bag, run by people who are best known for flaming emails which have neither sense nor justification, most recently it seems fired at each other. However, that is their business, not ours. We are not “team players” and have no interest in being so. What has the independent review practiced here got to do with “team playing”? We tell it like it is, as best we can. We think for ourselves, hoping you will follow our example. If you do that, we believe you will save yourself. That is all. We are not part of a conspiracy of dissidents, we are independent scholars and journalists. This is a science blog, not a political one. Otherwise we would be preoccupied tonight with how the pusillanimous, flabby cheeked Tenet ever got the job of running the CIA and how he ever imagined he deserved it, given his best defense of his incompetence in believing Iraq had WMDs runs along the lines of “There is no silver bullet” and “You cannot build a perfect mousetrap”.

    Sorry that you feel that the Perth Group deserves more credit than we gave it, which if you will review the post is quite a lot. Their clinging to their claim that HIV has not been proved to exist in some validated form where it can be blamed for causing AIDS seems to us such a prima facie questionable opinion that we feel it only makes a laughing stock of them and anyone who is associated with them, even though they have much to their credit. Perhaps MacDonald can make something of it after all but so far he has not succeeded as far as we could stomach his posts before cancelling them for rudeness to his betters. Perhaps MacDonald is cleverer than Peter Duesberg who rejected it convincingly ten years ago. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    But it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong about their incredible claim. The simple fact is that they are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed, The first order of business is to establish that HIV does not cause AIDS, a fact that is backed by all the literature of the field, unless you read it standing on your head. Quarrel with the existence or proved existence or valid isolation of the virus after that if you like, when it will be even more irrelevant. The notion that you need the latter to prove the former is ridiculous, as far as we are concerned.

    Sorry, but despite the great other contributions of the Perth Group the Adelaide judgement demonstrated that any case brought with them as witnesses is going to go down the tubes. The other witnesses Marcel listed are the ones to use. This is not amateur hour, this is war, as John Moore has stated. To oppose an aircraft carrier you need a few Exocet missiles, not a Vietnam era battleship.

    Why O why do we not use as witnesses the many hundreds of scientists and doctors we have who DO have impeccable, relevant and impressive credentials? Why not Duesberg, Charles Thomas, Gabor-Miklos, Strohman, Rubin, Rasnick, deHarven, Bialy, Maniotis, Margulis and many many more that we have on our List page.

  14. Robert Houston Says:

    Some commentators seem to be enthralled with the Perth Group’s contention that HIV doesn’t exist. That’s not an oversimplification; here’s how the Perth Group actually phrases it: “There is no proof that such an entity exists” (The Last Debate, Reappraising AIDS, Dec. 1999). Here’s how they put it at their website (theperthgroup.com): “The view of the Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven: 1. The existence of a unique exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.”

    To maintain such a position nowadays is just an embarassment, causing AIDS dissenters to be laughed out of court, as in Adelaide, and out of serious scientific discussion. Truthseeker properly acknowledged that the Perth scientists have made many excellent studies of various aspects of AIDS, but he also noted that an obstinate emphasis on their non-existence doctrine can have potentially detrimental effects.

    Some commentators may not be aware that over 10 years Prof. Peter Duesberg conclusively rejected the Perth position on the non-existence of HIV and showed that the virus has been properly isolated and sequenced. His critiques appeared in Continuum, July/Aug. 1996 and Feb./March 1997.

    Among other things, Duesberg pointed out that the standards for viral isolation that Perth used to reject HIV were those set forth by the Pasteur Institute, circa 1972, and that better methods later become available. By these more sophisticated methods, HIV has been adequately isolated and sequenced, according to Prof. Duesberg.

    AIDS Rethinkers can’t have it both ways, perpetually Hamletizing about whether HIV is to be or not to be. On this key issue, either one sides with Dr. Duesberg, who is a distinguished retrovirologist and has actually sequenced many viruses, or one sides with radiation physicist Eleni Papadopulos and her Australian colleagues, none of whom is a virologist.

  15. Dan Says:

    AIDS Rethinkers can’t have it both ways, perpetually Hamletizing about whether HIV is to be or not to be

    AIDS Rethinkers, by definition, are simply rethinking what they’ve been told about HIV/AIDS.

    “We’re” not the dogmatic HIV faithful. “We” question. “We” don’t tell others what to think.
    “We” don’t assume that since somebody has a PhD, that they’re automatically correct about HIV/AIDS. “We” don’t tell others they need to choose between Duesberg and Perth…or maybe we do.

    Duesberg pointed out that the standards for viral isolation that Perth used to reject HIV were those set forth by the Pasteur Institute, circa 1972, and that better methods later become available.

    You’re talking about two different things…standards and methods. Are better methods synonymous with better standards? What makes the methods better? It’s a confusing statement, above.

    either one sides with Dr. Duesberg, who is a distinguished retrovirologist and has actually sequenced many viruses, or one sides with radiation physicist Eleni Papadopulos and her Australian colleagues, none of whom is a virologist.

    Taking sides based on title and rank? How scientific.

  16. Michael Says:

    Robert, MacDonald, and TS as well. On the Reappraising AIDS site was an interesting piece a month or two ago by a French researcher named Jean Umber. She offers a theory that does seem to tie Mainstream, Perth, and Peter’s work together. As I am not knowledgeable about science, I don’t know what to think of it, but I did find it interesting and plausible. I don’t know if you had read Umber’s piece or not, but I would love to know your opinions. Do you think Umbers theory could be a legitimate possibility in explaining a good percentage of HIV positives?

    It can be found at: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html

  17. MartinDKessler Says:

    Since “HIV” has been isolated, where is the electron photomicrograph of the bug? All I’ve seen are artist concepts/computer generated images. Can anyone direct me to one?

  18. MacDonald Says:

    Perhaps MacDonald can make something of it after all but so far he has not succeeded as far as we could stomach his posts before cancelling them

    I see NAR has solved the problem of dissenting voices amongst dissidents in a strikingly familiar. manner. How could one argue with that?

    I feel a congratulations! is once more in order

  19. MacDonald Says:

    Mr. Houston is referring to a (probably censored) statement to the effect that ‘it is an oversimplification to paraphrase the Perth Group as claiming HIV dosn’t exist’. Seeing that Mr. Houston has actually taken the trouble to look up the exact wording on theperthgroup.com, one is (almost) at a loss for further words:

    Some commentators seem to be enthralled with the Perth Group’s contention that HIV doesn’t exist. That’s not an oversimplification; here’s how the Perth Group actually phrases it: “There is no proof that such an entity exists” (The Last Debate, Reappraising AIDS, Dec. 1999). Here’s how they put it at their website (theperthgroup.com): “The view of the Perth Group is that the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven: 1. The existence of a unique exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.”

    According to Mr. Houston’s admirable clarification the following two propositions should be identical:

    “HIV does not exist.”

    “HIV has not been proven to exist”.

    I cannot do much more than rely on the reader’s grasp of the English language to demonstrate that to claim identiy between the two is utter nonsense.

    Further clarification by the Perth Group:

    By “HIV has not been proven to exist”

    is meant

    “The existence of a unique exogenously acquired retrovirus, called HIV, is not proven to exist”,

    Which, if our truthseeking host’s exceptionally sensitive stomach can keep down a few more lines of precise language, means,

    “an entity, HIV, with the, by AIDS Inc., specified defining properties and characteristics (the ones that make it “unique”) has not been proven to exist”.

    If, as Mr. Houston claims, the Perth Group has been refuted and such an entity has been shown by Prof. Duesberg to have been proven to exist, Prof. Duesberg has also refuted his own claims made elsewhere with regard to the characteristics of the virus.

    My guess is Prof. Duesberg would claim no more than that he has shown an infectious,
    exogenous, agent with typical retroviral properties has been isolated and sequenced – which makes the scientific rift between him and the Perth Group negligible to anybody with no personal axe to grind.

    Ultimatums of the form, ‘either you’re with Duesberg or you’re with Perth’, I think are best left in the care of the current president’s speech writers.

  20. MacDonald Says:

    Secondly,

    Some may have noticed I left out the word ‘unique’ in the position on the virus I attributed to Duesberg. Duesberg I think would say that the entity which has been cloned and sequenced is unique. In this as well as ‘exogenous’ (unique and exogenous are parts of the same controversy) he is at variance with the Perth Group.

    But from here it becomes largely a question of semantics. Duesberg may say a unique retrovirus has been isolated, but he would, or should, not say a “unique retrovirus ‘HIV'”, because ‘HIV’ is defined as having all those properties and characteristics from the molecular level up that are in dispute.

    If the reader would care to take a look at all the answers to Duesberg’s ‘virus found’ articles referenced by Mr. Houston, he would see for himself that one of the points brought against Duesberg is that he keeps referring to ‘HIV’ as if it is a properly defined entity and that we are all i agreement on what we are referring when we use the name.

    Would Duesberg agree with the proposition that what we are referring to when we say ‘HIV’ is a Human Immunodeficiency Virus and that such a virus exists?

  21. marcel Says:

    I don’t understand why TS deleted Macdonald’s posts. They didn’t seem at all out of line to me, and made very good points.

    Macdonald, you seemed to me to be suggesting that the Judge actually took John Peemore’s words, verbatim, and used them in his opinion without attribution, as if they were his own words. Is that correct? If that is the case, might that be grounds for a mistrial, or disqualification of the judge, or whatever?

    I was very impressed by the Perth Group’s arguments that there is no proof that Hiv exists, and I’ve leaned toward that position myself. Agreed, it’s a much harder sell than the Hiv doesn’t cause Aids proposition, and it is probably better to stick to the latter.

    But the nonexistence (not PROVEN to exist) point of view does have some very notable champions, like De Harven, Rodney Richards (who would have been a fantastic witness, with his credentials) Stefan Lanka and others.

    I think Borick really blew it. After I posted my thoughts about Eleni’s and Val’s unimpressive credentials several months ago, I guess I thought that maybe he was smart enough to realize that their credentials were not good enough, and bring on some other scientists with better creds. That he didn’t do that reflects poorly on his judgement.

    But, regardless, I still think the fix was in, and it wouldn’t have mattered. But indeed, let’s try again, and do it right next time. And also we need someone to organize this “Don’t Get Tested” ad campaign.

  22. Dan Says:

    Good post, Marcel. I agree with everything in it.

    I’ve mentioned the idea of a “don’t get tested” campaign at AME not too long ago. Although intellectually satisfying, I’ve thought that it probably wasn’t practical, as people’s first reaction is that it was completely off the wall.

    But, in rethinking this idea, it sounds much better.

    The initial reaction may be one of shock, but that’s exactly what people need to jar them out of their present HIV=AIDS mindset. That blow to their comfort zone will get them to think and ask questions…if only to try and find their way back to their comfort zone. And there’s where the great opportunity for rethinking resides.

  23. MacDonald Says:

    Thanks Marcel,

    With regard to your question re. Moore and Sulan, I’m not suggesting that the judge was actually coached by JP himself. I use his name and site generically to represent the more obvious AIDS infoganda and mafia methods. The term “ask John”, coined by our host, means, on my interpretation, to simply go to the nearest AIDS Inc. representative (who more often than not happens to be John Moore) for the answer when one is faced with criticism of the dogma, rather than seeking independent sources and taking the trouble of making up one’s own mind

    Then again, you don’t have to be an expert on “differential language diagnosis” to see that the judge has learned an unmistakable vocabulary, style, tone, inner logic, while away on holiday. Either that or he has taken intertextuality to new levels.

    Simply put, maybe JP wasn’t there, but Sulan has done a helluva job of channeling him.

    Would be interesting to see which tone and writing style judge Sulan uses in other cases.

    With regard to other witnesses, apparently there were certain ‘complicating circumstances’ that prevented Borick from bringing in more Defence experts.

    Finally, The blo’ host thought my explanations re. Perth and virus isolation were too indigestible, and has kindly requested a simpler version.

    This is as simple as it gets:

    1. ‘Does not exist’ and ‘has not been proven to exist’ are just not equivalent propositions.

    2. HIV is a word, a word must refer to something well-defined. HIV is not such a something.

    3. No rethinker, Duesbergian or Perthian, would say that the existence of a Human Immunodeficiency Virus has been proven.

  24. MacDonald Says:

    I see point 2 may still be a little unclear. I rephrase:

    2. ‘HIV’ is a word, a word must refer to something well defined. That to which the word HIV refers is not such a something.

    This is the very reason why Rebecca Culshaw gave up on modelling HIV mathematically. In her book, Dan Fendel puts it like this:

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

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/04/science_sold_ou.html#comments

  25. Dan Says:

    HIV’ is a word, a word must refer to something well defined. That to which the word HIV refers is not such a something

    MacDonald, Perth or no Perth, here’s what I believe you’re trying to say…

    Human Immunodeficiency Virus doesn’t exist. For Human Immunodeficiency Virus to exist, it must first be isolated (Duesberg: yes, Perth: no), then…it must actually cause immunodeficiency.

    It can’t be Human Immunodeficiency Virus if it isn’t causing immunodeficiency now, can it?

    Therefore, Human Immunodeficiency Virus doesn’t exist.

    Is this what you’re trying to say, MacDonald?

  26. Truthseeker Says:

    I see NAR has solved the problem of dissenting voices amongst dissidents in a strikingly familiar. manner. How could one argue with that?

    Sorry, Marcel, dissent is the business of this blog, but insults are not, particularly of the host, unless exceptionally urbane and witty, in the usual MacDonald manner. There is also the matter of intelligibility. We tried editing out the jibes but could not immediately make sense of the points, so we actually counted on MacDonald to restate them, which he has done, but again they seem somewhat opaque.

    MacDonald, perhaps it is merely our hangover, but your approval of the Perth “HIV does not exist” line is either brilliant to the level of Einstein in its escape from current limitations in thinking about viruses and microvesicles, or it is stenography of a muse from Mars. Please differentiate for us. Is there an entity X which is rightly or wrongly labeled HIV and which exists in some form where it can be detected in some way and its consistent characteristics enumerated and described, an entity which appears in electron microscope photographs as individual particles?

    What is needed is a list of facts, or contradiction of facts and statement of true substitute facts. As far as we understand it from the NIH and Duesberg:

    1. A retrovirus which has been mislabeled HIV exists as a separate viable entity, a wisp of RNA 9 kilobases long, which replicates by entering cells, transforming itself into DNA and attaching itself to the DNA of the cell, and then replicating as the cell replicates.

    2. This retrovirus strand has been repeatedly sequenced by many people in different labs throughout the world who have come up with the same sequence of 9 kilobases.

    3. The variations in the sequences are in one case sufficiently large that you have HIV-1 and HIV-2, but in most cases rather small so you have different strains of HIV, which can be detected reliably enough that labs can tell you if your girlfriend got the virus you have from you, and you should go to jail for 15 years for not telling her you are HIV-positive etc etc

    4. You can clone the full length virus genetic code of HIV 1 and 2 from virus infected cells by putting it in a bacterial plasmid (a replicating genetic unit in the cytoplasm of a cell) and generating a virion (virus particle) which will have reverse transcriptase and which can be detected by probes for HIV like PCR. This isolation is far more stringent than physically purifying it or separating the virus because it is the “soul of the virus”, the genetic code uncontaminated with proteins or other cell particles or microvesicles as could occur in cell culture. That this occurs by chance is a fatuous idea, mathematically speaking.

    5. HIV 1 it is neutralised by anti-sera (immunoglobulins containing antibodies) from the blood of patients who are HIV1 positive, but not from patients who are HIV 2 positive, and vice versa.

    6. The specific genetic DNA for HIV has been detected with PCR in most antibody positive persons with or without AIDS, but in hardly any people who are HIV negative.

    7. HIV is shipped from one lab to another in culture and shows the exactly the same sequence when it arrives in the hands of the new lab.

    MacDonald your last post is absurd. You revise your claim that HIV is not well defined by saying the same thing and then quoting someone with a quote that doesn’t apply, which is about moving other goal posts. HIV is very well defined, as well defined by its genetic sequence as any other virus,

    Don’t take an AIDS test

    Marcel, you are right. The horrible social consequences of being positive deserve a post.

  27. MacDonald Says:

    More or less Dan, except that this is point 3, not point 2.

    It can’t be [defined as] Human Immunodeficiency Virus if it isn’t [adequately shown] to be causing immunodeficiency

    Therefore [if it is not adequately shown to case human immunodeficiency, the entity defined as] Human Immunodeficiency Virus [cannot be accepted] to exist

    On the one well defined characteristic that it’s the virus that causes Human Immune Deficiency, none of the rethinkers in question should accept HIV’s existence.

    Point 2 goes deeper and looks at the constantly changing definitions of HIV from molecular level up to make it fit the one constant ’causes human immune deficiency/AIDS’.

    An easy example for those of us who aren’t mathematicians or mol. biologists: HIV was first defined as that which causes AIDS, a variety of known diseases. But it is also a disesase unto itself, even when it doesn’t make the person ill. ‘HIV disease’ is when one is diagnosed with HIV, regardless of whether one has any symptoms or not – whether one EVER gets any clinical symptoms.

    HIV disease is used to broadly describe the disease or illness caused by infection with the human immunodeficiency virus; if untreated, the disease typically progress slowly from asymptomatic infection to worsening immunocompromise to full-blown AIDS. In general, this process takes about ten years, though this can vary widely from person to person.

    http://www.sfaf.org/aids101/

    One of the definitions of HIV, then, is that it is the virus that makes you sick whether you are sick or not. How did this idea come about? Because it’s part of the definition of HIV that it inevitably, without exception, causes AIDS. Now we have ‘elite controllers’, thousands of them, who will probably die of old age before they die of AIDS. But they are still sick, because in theory, had they lived till they were 300, they would have developed AIDS, on which criteria metabolism is a deadly disease. – Or maybe they are mutants who lack certain molecular receptors, because it’s one of the properties of HIV that it needs those receptors to enter the cells, which it per definition always does because the positive test has defined you as sick…. and so on and so forth.

    The term ‘HIV disease’ has redefined HIV as a disease unto itself, apart from AIDS, to make it fit with the previous definition, ‘the entity which invariably causes AIDS’. Does such an entity, called ‘HIV’ really exist, or is it a construct?

    Rebecca Culshaw again:

    So it would appear that “AIDS” and “HIV disease” are not, in fact, the same thing, (…) unless of course one takes them both to signify “meaning nothing and everything at once”.

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/11/dr_dr_culshaw_w.html

    Correction: Dan Fendel’s comment is not from Rebecca Culshaw’s book, but from a review on Amazon.com

    http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424/sr=11-1/qid=1167496016/ref=sr_11_1/002-5936051-6572869

  28. MacDonald Says:

    Dear Truthseeker,

    I’m sad to learn that your initial stomach trouble has now spread to your head. Your questions:

    Is there an entity X which is rightly or wrongly labeled HIV and which exists in some form where it can be detected in some way and its consistent characteristics enumerated and described, an entity which appears in electron microscope photographs as individual particles?

    There is almost certainly an entity labeled HIV, probably more than one. Any entity’s characteristics can be enumerated and described. I have no idea whether what is called HIV has appeared on a photograph. I do know that entities appearing on photographs have been called HIV.

    The following 7 questions referenced by TS’s numbers:

    1. A retrovirus which has been mislabeled HIV exists as a separate viable entity, a wisp of RNA 9 kilobases long, which replicates by entering cells, transforming itself into DNA and attaching itself to the DNA of the cell, and then replicating as the cell replicates.

    1. I don’t know, but I think that’s the consensus, apart perhaps from some issues with the term ‘retrovirus’ and ‘separate viable’ as in the wild, outside of certain artificial conditions.

    2. This retrovirus strand has been repeatedly sequenced by many people in different labs throughout the world who have come up with the same sequence of 9 kilobases.

    3. The variations in the sequences are in one case sufficiently large that you have HIV-1 and HIV-2, but in most cases rather small so you have different strains of HIV, which can be detected reliably enough that labs can tell you if your girlfriend got the virus you have from you, and you should go to jail for 15 years for not telling her you are HIV-positive etc etc

    2,3. Well, that’s where much of the controversy stands right now. Who am I to say?

    4. You can clone the full length virus genetic code of HIV 1 and 2 from virus infected cells by putting it in a bacterial plasmid (a replicating genetic unit in the cytoplasm of a cell) and generating a virion (virus particle) which will have reverse transcriptase and which can be detected by probes for HIV like PCR. This isolation is far more stringent than physically purifying it or separating the virus because it is the “soul of the virus”, the genetic code uncontaminated with proteins or other cell particles or microvesicles as could occur in cell culture. That this occurs by chance is a fatuous idea, mathematically speaking.

    4. I’m really not familiar with the exact procedure, but something like that sure. I don’t think anybody contends that.

    5. HIV 1 it is neutralised by anti-sera (immunoglobulins containing antibodies) from the blood of patients who are HIV1 positive, but not from patients who are HIV 2 positive, and vice versa.

    5. Quite possibly.

    6. The specific genetic DNA for HIV has been detected with PCR in most antibody positive persons with or without AIDS, but in hardly any people who are HIV negative.

    6. I don’t think the correlation is always that good. I don’t know if PCR picks up DNA or RNA (fragments) specific for that which you call ‘HIV’. Possibly.

    7. HIV is shipped from one lab to another in culture and shows the exactly the same sequence when it arrives in the hands of the new lab.

    7. Don’t know. Not sure about the point.

    MacDonald your last post is absurd. You revise your claim that HIV is not well defined by saying the same thing and then quoting someone with a quote that doesn’t apply, which is about moving other goal posts. HIV is very well defined, as well defined by its genetic sequence as any other virus, (TS and his science consultant)

    It is true I wasn’t talking about the genetic sequence. As I’ve said, my main concern, and qualifications, lie with the semantic aspect. This started out with the difference between the two propositions “HIV does not exist” and “HIV has not been proven to exist”. I have not moved any goal posts.

    On the genetic sequence issue as on the maths I defer to the ladies:

    I heard a talk by a “medical scientist” from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity. (Lynn Margulis)

  29. Truthseeker Says:

    I’m sad to learn that your initial stomach trouble has now spread to your head

    Thank you for your concern, MacDonald, it is true that we have a large headache right now, but it is the peculiar plum colored drink in champagne glasses offered last night at the grand opening of the Lyme Disease Center at Columbia which is the culprit, not your fine words, which you have now made much more specific, for which we are grateful. Your post makes it clear (we think) that you quarrel with none of the factual claims of the NIH or Duesberg except one, #3 (if you will forgive us, we have added the points to which you were replying to your post to make it clear):

    (TS) 3. The variations in the sequences are in one case sufficiently large that you have HIV-1 and HIV-2, but in most cases rather small so you have different strains of HIV, which can be detected reliably enough that labs can tell you if your girlfriend got the virus you have from you, and you should go to jail for 15 years for not telling her you are HIV-positive etc etc

    (McD) 2,3. Well, that’s where much of the controversy stands right now. Who am I to say?

    So you do not think the virus has been accurately and reliably sequenced in its 9 kilobase RNA genetic structure, is that right? So it seems, though you say you are not sure or expert enough to contradict it with any confidence.

    Well, can you say why you lack confidence in this claim? Do you credit the counter-claim from Elena P that it could have been reliably sequenced 19 times because they all stumbled across the same bits and pieces by chance? If so, then you do not accept the Duesberg statement that the chance of this happening is impossibly low, as Duesberg pointed out, in his reply, which if you don’t mind we would like to reproduce below since it is not long (the boldface is ours):

    Peter Duesberg wrote:
    I am honoured by the profound and passionate reactions of Hodgkinson, Lanka and Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. to my letter on the existence or the non-existence of HIV (1-3).

    However, I cannot surrender to the HIV-non-existentialists for the following two scientific reasons:

    1) The weakest point of the HlV-non-existentialists is their failure to explain the origin of “19 sequences encompassing the full-length, 10kb-HIV-1 genome” (3) and “19 full-length HIV genomes” (1). Hence Papadopulos et al.’s unanswered question: “Can one exclude the possibility that the 19 ‘full length HIV genomes’ described so far, even if they all had the same length of 9150 bp [base pairs] and identical sequences are nothing more than a chance finding among the many molecular species present in the cultures, or even the uncultured lymphocytes….?” (3), that were “taken from AIDS patients and AIDS risk groups”, as Hodgkinson points out. (1)

    Yes, one can exclude that. Remember the odds of coming up with even one nucleotide sequence of 9150 bp by chance are astronomically low, namely 1 in 49150 which is very very close to zero (see my letter in the July/August Continuum 4). The chance of coming up 19-times with the same HIV-DNAs, even “from cultures treated with chemical or physical oxidants” (3) are another 19 orders of magnitude lower than finding it once by chance. Indeed the odds are much much lower than finding 19 guys on this planet with the same phone numbers.

    Science offers but one rational origin for such sequences appearing “very occasionally”’ in species, namely viruses or other infectious agents. Thus the virus hypothesis is not a “specious”’ explanation for the origin of 9150 bp DNA that is “very occasionally” found in AIDS patients.

    2) The HlV-non-existentialists also fail to realize that available isolation efforts have already adequately identified the 9150 bases as the genome of a virus. In order to “isolate” a given infectious agent, one needs no more than to isolate it from all other, possibly contaminating, infectious agents – this is in fact Koch’s second postulate.

    Since viruses have an extracellular and intracellular existence, viruses can be isolated from two entirely different sources:

    (i) Viruses have been traditionally isolated from extracellular fluids. Such viruses may be contaminated by extracellular proteins, nucleic acids and possibly other microbes.

    Montagnier’s original isolate of HIV from extracellular fluids is an example. Indeed, Montagnier’s isolate appears to meet functional standards of isolation adequately, because two of the world’s leading retrovirologists, Robert Gallo of the NIH and Robin Weiss of the Chester Beatty have re-isolated only HIV from Montagnier’s virus stock (5,6). If Montagnier’s virus had been grossly contaminated by other viruses or microbes, those would have been found by Gallo and Weiss.

    (ii) Since the 1980s viruses can also be isolated as infectious nucleic acids from infected cells. Such infectious nucleic acids initiate replication of virus in uninfected cells from which new virus particles are subsequently released. In this case viral nucleic acid is contaminated by cellular nucleic acid, and possible other intracellular viruses.

    As I pointed out in my Missing Virus Reward claim in the July/August Continuum, infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected cells several times by molecular cloning (4). This cloned, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases represents an almost theoretical isolation, as it is a 100,000-fold purification from all nucleic acids of the cell and its possible viruses. This is because the human cell contains 1 million kilobases of DNA and HIV only 10. Contrary to Papadopulos et al.’s slogan – “No isolation no cloning” – cloning is isolation, and is in fact the most rigorous isolation science has to offer for retroviruses.

    Thus the high standards of virus isolation from extracellular materials postulated by Papadopulos et al. and Hodgkinson may be relevant for crystallographers or chemists who want to analyze the structure of a virus, but are not relevant for functional isolation.

    In view of this I hope to liberate the minds of HIV dissidents from HIV for the cause that unites us all – the solution of AIDS. It seems tragic that over 99% of AIDS researchers study a virus that does not cause AIDS and that the few who don’t are now engaged in a debate over the existence of a virus that doesn’t cause AIDS.

    Peter Duesberg, Continuum Feb./March 1997

    To us, this seems decisive, even though Elena replied to it with forty pages. What did you detect in her reply that makes you believe her, rather than Duesberg? We haven’t yet troubled to try and make sense out of it, after trying once and giving up.

  30. SimonDaniel Says:

    Here is why I’m not convinced that HIV exists as a unique retrovirus as claimed by the AIDS establishment, and Peter Duesberg.

    From the virusmyth site (apparently one of the Pasteur Institute’s rules for isolation of a retrovirus):

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

    Dr. Etienne de Harven describes one such image of retrovirus particles here, that he published in 1965.

    From Prof. Peter Duesberg’s prize claim:
    In view of this I can base my claim for the isolation of HIV on the most rigorous method available to date, i.e. molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA, rather than only on the much less stringent, traditional “rules for isolation of a retrovirus … discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973” that were stated criteria of isolation in Continuum’s missing virus reward (6). Indeed I will show that molecular cloning of infectious HIV DNA exceeds the criteria of the old “Pasteur rules”.

    Duesberg goes on to argue that HIV DNA has been isolated using his new criteria. If the Pasteur Institute’s rules are less stringent, shouldn’t they be easier to satisfy? The isolation of HIV DNA as described by Duesberg predicts that virus particles can be isolated from a cell culture and photographed, as described by the Pasteur Institute’s rules. As far as I understand it, this is exactly what Gallo and Montagnier claimed to have done, although they didn’t publish any such photographs.

    Given the evidence of isolation and identification of HIV DNA that Duesberg describes, it is simply assumed that retrovirus particles are the explanation. Isn’t it possible that there may be another explanation?

    A suitable electron micrograph showing these particles would certainly make their existence more difficult to deny!

  31. Truthseeker Says:

    Isn’t it possible that there may be another explanation?

    OK, why is it necessary to suggest another explanation for something that by its nature establishes the existence of the genome without contamination? And if there is another explanation, which one do you like that is not subject to difficulties, such as the Duesberg one of “no it is not likely”, by an order of magnitude as great as the number of atoms in the earth and sky?

    A suitable electron micrograph showing these particles would certainly make their existence more difficult to deny!

    They seem to have them on a scale that shows particles without being big enough to identify them precisely, so the argument against them being HIV can suggest that the picture could be other viral particles or microvesicles, apparently. Is an electron micrograph possible of such a small item at a magnification sufficient to clearly show the surface structure or outline? Apparently not.

    But all corrections welcome. One remarkable thing is that explanations of how this all works have never been clear to us, even from de Harven. Quite amazing how inarticulate scientists are about the simplest things.

  32. MacDonald Says:

    As much as I’d like to make that last paragraph from the TS stand as eternal last words on this blog: perhaps next to the proud admission that he couldn’t be bothered reading Perth’s lengthy nor Lanka’s much shorter response in Continuum once Duesberg had spoken, the show must go on.

    Contrary to Papadopulos et al.’s slogan – “No isolation no cloning” – cloning is isolation, and is in fact the most rigorous isolation science has to offer for retroviruses. (Duesberg)

    Cloning is indeed isolation. What Papadopulos et al’s slogan says/means to say is ¨no purification no cloning¨

    The entire expert team’s strategy in Adelaide consisted in exploiting this ambiguity in the terminology.

    I say with our host ¨quite amazing how inarticulate scientists are about the simplest things

    (TS) 3. The variations in the sequences are in one case sufficiently large that you have HIV-1 and HIV-2, but in most cases rather small so you have different strains of HIV, which can be detected reliably enough that labs can tell you if your girlfriend got the virus you have from you, and you should go to jail for 15 years for not telling her you are HIV-positive etc etc

    (McD) 2,3. Well, that’s where much of the controversy stands right now. Who am I to say?

    (TS) So you do not think the virus has been accurately and reliably sequenced in its 9 kilobase RNA genetic structure, is that right? So it seems, though you say you are not sure or expert enough to contradict it with any confidence.

    According to the defence, Parenzee never had his ‘HIV’ sequenced. Parenzee had a fragment corresponding to 12% of the total consensus genome sequenced. That fragment was then put in a ‘genetic tree’ and compared to the ‘victim’s’ fragment of an ‘HIV’genome. Upon finding thet they were similar, not identical but ‘similar,’ it was decided that what was found in the victim had come from Parenzee, and that the 1% difference was as it should be for an entity that mutates half a billion times a day. The obvious comparison is that such a genetic difference, if extended to the whole genome – which is not given in this case – would have turned a man into a chimpanzee many times over.

    I don’t f…ing know the answer, but this is how these issues present themselves, not as some simplistic ”the ‘HIV’ genome has been reliably sequenced and it was found in both Parenzee and his ‘victim – same strain to boot” rubbish

    HIV has a 30% variability at any given point in time The genomic difference that was finally big enough to make AIDS Inc. declare they had a new Human Immunodeficiency Virus on their hands is 40%-60%. Those 60% were awarded a number, ‘2’, after the definition ‘HIV’.

    What’s the mathematical propability that two distinct Immunodeficiency Viruses should decide to jump the species barrier at the same time and earn themselves an H in front of their IV?

    And when does something cease to be that something and become something else? When we decide to give it another name?

  33. Dan Says:

    OK,
    no more questioning. Science is about authority, and Duesberg is the authority.

    HIV has been isolated with better methods or standards (or something) than Pasteur ’72. Accept it.

    Now that that ugliness is behind us, we are free to question…so long as we know what to question and what not to question.

  34. marcel Says:

    Anyway, there are actually three key questions that might be tested in court. 1) Does Hiv exist? 2) Does Hiv cause Aids, and, probably the one that Borick should have asked: 3) Are the tests accurate?

  35. Truthseeker Says:

    As much as I’d like to make that last paragraph from the TS stand as eternal last words on this blog: perhaps next to the proud admission that he couldn’t be bothered reading Perth’s lengthy nor Lanka’s much shorter response in Continuum once Duesberg had spoken, the show must go on.

    If you say they are worth tackling again we are willing, MacDonald, since we have infinite respect for your judgement, as long as it is backed up by your own reading and genuinely openminded assessment of authority and credibility. But since we tried once and were unimpressed, why do you hold it against us not to waste time doing it again unless you point the way? Sooner or later claims have to be justified, and the Perth Group have had plenty of time to make themselves clear and prove their point, and it doesn’t seem to have happened. All other criticisms of the HIV∫AIDS claim have torn gaping holes in the paradigm, but not this one. Even the length of their 40 page answer is not a good sign, in our opinion. But as we say, we tackled it and found it wasn’t clear, decisive or even attractive.

    Anyhow, Dan, Duesberg’s authority in this case prevails with us because his logic seems decisive, not because he is automatically right on every point, although his track record is very close indeed to 100%, and no one even among his opponents has claimed he is weak on logic or in citing evidence, or in producing his own impressive work. He is openminded and considers all evidence against what he thinks and deals with it in public, and he is decisive based on evidence he quotes. In all things scientific he is more impressive than the Perth Group. To bleat that he is prevailing because of his “authority” is silly, but if it is an authority fight, he would deserve to prevail.

    Sooner or later, one does tire of giving self deluded minds endless rope. Take cold fusion for example. Pons and Fleishmann had a very good run for their money, and there are still industrial labs in Japan trying to make something of it, and some publications. Yet are you suggesting we go visit Pons in France and listen to him all over again? Presumably not. The world’s greatest labs joined the rush to see if he had anything, the Department of Energy and Utah gave millions, the University of Utah competed with MIT to patent it, the American Chemical Society and American Physical Society gave them a platform, Los Alamos, Harwell, and nothing proved out. There comes a time sooner or later when it behooves all sensible souls to move on from considering the novel ideas of peripheral figures however well meaning and self-convinced, if what they say doesn’t gain traction among even habitual skeptics of the status quo. The strong contradiction of HIV∫AIDS has gained enormous and determined support among good scientists and intelligent people under the leadership of Duesberg, whose efforts are probably a sine qua non of any progress against this massive mountain of delusion, and have always been impeccably grounded on reason and science tested by his willingness to entertain all possible objections without fear or favor, so we value his judgement highly for good reason, and grant him authority far higher than the Perth Group.

    Any failure to recognize Duesberg’s stature ignores these facts, and we say this even as we give the Perth Group their due, which is considerable also. But the two are not comparable in weight and we see nothing wrong in acknowledging this. The strange resistance to crediting Duesberg for fear of “hero worshipping” him is not supported here. He is an eminent scientist and deserves his reputation, which his opponents cannot easily deny, though they try to. Without Duesberg, it is doubtful that any of this would be discussed any more. The whole world would be going along with HIV∫AIDS without any credible resistance at all.

    Anyway, there are actually three key questions that might be tested in court. 1) Does Hiv exist? 2) Does Hiv cause Aids, and, probably the one that Borick should have asked: 3) Are the tests accurate?

    Haven’t you got the point yet, Marcel? You don’t try to test 1). It guarantees your case will fail. Substitute 1) Is HIV transmissible in heterosexual sex?

    I don’t f…ing know the answer, but this is how these issues present themselves, not as some simplistic ”the ‘HIV’ genome has been reliably sequenced and it was found in both Parenzee and his ‘victim – same strain to boot” rubbish

    These two issues (sequencing as proof of HIV’s existence, and the identification of the strains in the Paranzee case) are a little different, MacDonald. Your comments seem completely valid on the second. Alas, it seems pretty clear that Borick wasn’t up to speed on what should have be argued, and that this was because he was tied to the Perth Group by the family of the prisoner. The bottom line is that the Perth group lost the case, and it would have been won in all probability if the more authoritative witnesses against HIV∫AIDS thinking had been called, and the defense had argued along the lines you are pointing to.

  36. Robert Houston Says:

    To be sure, there is much to admire and consider seriously in the remarkable contributions of the Perth Group to the understanding of AIDS. Their papers are provocative, thoughtful, and well-informed. I would question only their peculiar obstinacy in maintaining that HIV hasn’t been shown to exist. My earlier point – that on this “existential issue” one must choose, like it or not, between Perth and Duesberg – has been corroborated by the subsequent commentators. While saying they decline to choose, in fact they’ve done so by siding with the Perth Group.

    Mr. MacDonald has tried to convert this into a semantic issue regarding “human immunodeficiency” in the name. That’s a separate issue on which we probably agree – the name is self-serving and inappropriate. What we were talking about, however, is the putative existence of the virus itself that was formerly known as “Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus – III” (Gallo) and “Lymphadenopathy Associated Virus” (Montagnier), and later called HIV-1. (HIV-2 is a different though nominally related retrovirus that occurs mainly in Africa and the Third world, and is believed to be more benign; in the USA and Europe “HIV” usually refers to HIV-1 which was first found in France.) Since Montagnier in France sent it to Gallo in the USA and Robin Weiss in England in a culture vial by special delivery and they identified it as a virus at the other end, apparently there was something real and tangible from the start, i.e., something that exists.

    I appreciate Mr. MacDonald’s correction that Perth speaks in terms of “proof” of existence. Is the thrust of their argument, then, that HIV is probably real but just needs better proof of reality? No, it’s that they believe that HIV is unreal and thus hasn’t – and probably can’t – be proven to exist. A sure basis to be laughed out of the court of world opinion.

    A suitable electron micrograph showing these particles would certainly make their existence more difficult to deny!

    Although Simon Daniel and others keep suggesting that there’s no such documentation, in fact there have been numerous publications of electron micrographs showing what is described as HTLV-III, LAV, or later HIV-1. Perusing the AIDS articles in the journal Science for 1984, I found 9 studies with such electronmicrographic evidence:

    These included two of the original four papers from Gallo’s group: M. Popovic et al. and J. Schubach et al. Science, 5/4/84. There were also three studies with photos of LAV from Montagnier’s group: D. Klatzman et al., L. Montagnier et al., and P. Feorine et al. (in Science, 7/6/84). Here are some more from Science: J. Levy et al., 8/24/84; J. Groopman et al., 10/26/84; D. Zagury et al, 10/26/84; D. Ho et al., 10/26/84. Of course, there were many more such studies with photos of HIV in subsequent years (if anyone’s interested, I can list more).

    No doubt the Perth Group can find one reason or another to reject any electron micrographs, but it’s incorrect to say that none were published.

  37. MacDonald Says:

    I’m sorry to see my discussion of this has been taken as siding with the Perth Group against Duesberg.

    I have tried to specify what some of the issues are from different angles. I don’t think I have said anything to refute Duesberg’s point that a unique, exogenous retrovirus has been isolated according to the literature.

    The name issue aside (which is an artificial bracketing off, but let’s attempt it), as our host has remarked on several occasions now, the Perth Group’s many, many words on this topic are not always so accessible or ‘attractive’, but I’ll stick my neck out and summarize them in this respect:

    I think Mr. Houston is right to say that the Perth group does not expect that all the ‘retroviral phenomena’ proteins, nucleic acids etc. observed in the lab belong to any one exogenous entity whichever name it is called. But they are of course not claiming scientists are sequencing thin air as it were.

    I repeat, I’m not qualified to judge, or even ‘lean’ one way or the other.

    It does seem to me, however, that if one attributes the unqualified position to Duesberg that purification, isolation, characterization of the entity in question is unproblematic (apart from low titers in uncultured samples), one has no choice but to accept that the antibody tests (early difficulties of technical nature aside) are accurate. Likewise, and assuming the HIV scientists and lab technicians have not been sloppy, one is also forced to accept that Parenzee’s ‘HIV’ fragment identifies him as the culprit, that ‘HIV’ mutates haf a billion times a day, that HIV is self-identical at up to 39%, 60% or whatever genomic difference, etc. etc.

  38. SimonDaniel Says:

    Robert Houston pointed out: No doubt the Perth Group can find one reason or another to reject any electron micrographs, but it’s incorrect to say that none were published.

    I agree with this, there are plenty of pictures claiming to be electron micrographs of HIV particles that have been published. However, this is avoiding the issue. It is assumed that HIV particles band at the density 1.16gm/ml because it is assumed that this is characteristic of retroviral particles that are 100-120nm in diameter. So the specific electron micrograph that the Perth Group and de Harven are looking for should show a bunch of particles of this size with little contamination. They argue that this would be excellent evidence confirming that the material banding at 1.16 actually consists of retroviral particles.

    The images that have been published of purified HIV (like these ones) show that what is assumed to be “purified HIV particles” is actually a mixture of stuff. Naturally this raises the question of what this stuff actually consists of.

    The Perth Group and de Harven have been very specific, it would be very easy to prove them wrong simply by providing the right kind of picture. Perhaps this was not communicated very well in the trial, with the judge concluding I find that there is overwhelming evidence that such electron micrographs do exist.

    If anyone can point me to a published micrograph of HIV particles like the one here I will be delighted to concede this point.

  39. MacDonald Says:

    I have been asked by several people now, including Marcel above, if judge Sulan has really quoted Prof. Moore in his condemnation of the Perth Group. My answer is, no of course not, not verbatim. But a couple of minutes surfing on Aidstruth.org will suffice to show that somebody’s talking points have been carefully covered by judge Sulan. Below I give only examples relating to the passages I’ve quoted in my first comment above. If anybody should be that way inclined (s)he can continue the fun on his/her own until every major point from the judge has been covered – guaranteed. The quotes in bold are from judge Sulan, the rest from Moore.

    [Papadoulos-Eleopulos] evidence is littered with examples of misunderstandings, misinterpretation and denial of established scientific research.

    AIDS denialism relies, in part, on the dogmatic repetition of the misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or mischaracterization of certain scientific studies.

    ———–

    [Papadoulos-Eleopulos] either deliberately fails to acknowledge or is not aware of the most recent scientific research that establishes that HIV exists and that, if untreated, will lead to the breakdown of the immune system.

    The scientific facts are ignored, misunderstood or willfully misrepresented by the AIDS denialists.

    If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years

    ————

    [Papadoulos-Eleopulos] commences with a proposition which she then seeks to justify by reliance on material which, when properly understood does not support the proposition.

    However, it is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.

    ————-

    [Papadoulos-Eleopulos] is not independent. She is motivated to create a debate about her theory. The Perth Group will use whatever means available to promote that debate including encouragement of persons such as the applicant, to promote their theories.

    [Celia Farber] is an active participant in the activities she writes about; in other words, she has a personal agenda (…) she seems perfectly willing to exploit her own professional connections within the publishing industry to do anything she can to increase the sales of her book.

  40. Robert Houston Says:

    Except for the basic theme that AIDS dissidents are up to no good, it’s hard to see any specific or stylistic similarity in the above comparison between remarks by Judge Sulan and Dr. John Peemore (to use the Marcel’s felicitous new spelling). But perhaps Mr. McDonald can perceive some hidden features in common that would elude a less intensive scrutiny.

    In the prior comment, Simon Daniel requests an electron micrograph of a group of HIV particles, such as Dr. DeHarven once snapped of C-type particles. Such a class picture but at higher magnification was a Photo taken by Dr. Edward C. Klatt at the University of Utah.

    Dr. DeHarven used a different technique (ultrafiltration) for the small C-type particles. It’s not clear that this method would be apppropriate for HIV or, if so, why it hasn’t been used. The Perth Group and perhaps Mr. Daniel are being somewhat disingenuous, however, in demanding purified virus from the sucrose density gradient technique used by Montagnier for HIV, since they know full well that at the density for retroviruses (1.16), microvesicles from the cells are also found.

  41. Michael Says:

    Hello Robert. Hate to sound impertinent, but how do we laypeople know that the picture taken by Klatt IS a picture of what is commonly called HIV?

    Could there be anything else in nature besides LAV/HTLV-III/HIV that looks just like this stuff does besides what is called LAV/HTLV-III/HIV? How do we know it is not some other unidentified exogenous retrovirus?

    Do we just take Klatt’s word for it? Was it isolated from all else and sequenced?

    Would believing that this picture is HIV be just another “act of faith” instead of verified science?

    And then we still have the classic problem of how can something such as this be called HIV unless it is injected into another host and causes immune deficiency that is sure to be due to what is seen in the picture?

  42. Michael Says:

    And then, Robert, to top it all off, here is a picture of Klatt’s Pneumocystis Carinii, which strangely enough, looks to me, just like his picture of supposed HIV!

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

  43. MacDonald Says:

    Except for the basic theme that AIDS dissidents are up to no good, it’s hard to see any specific or stylistic similarity in the above comparison between remarks by Judge Sulan and Dr. John Peemore (to use the Marcel’s felicitous new spelling). But perhaps Mr. McDonald can perceive some hidden features in common that would elude a less intensive scrutiny.

    What Mr Houston with deceptive vagueness calls ‘the basic theme that AIDS dissidents are up to no good’ is precisely what constitutes the similar style and inner logic. I expressed it in the plainest language I know when I said these quotes illustrate that “somebody’s talking points are being covered”. The quotes are thus not meant to illlustrate that Prof. Moore and judge Sulan have taken the same grammar classes or that they utilize the same metaphors.

    An example of similar style and inner logic, which to me seems particularly out of place in a formal ldocument is the judge’s assertion that Papadopulos-Eleopulos will do anything to promote herself and her theories. ‘Anything’. That means not even stopping short of murder. How does the judge reach this conclusion? Because the Perth Group has a website? Papadopulos-Eleopulos is not the person who is on trial, a point the judge seemed to concede when Robert Gallo whined about it.

    The logic of such extreme moral condemnation based on something which, even if true, is a perfectly legitimate ambition in a capitalist society, if one doesn’t happen to be a ‘denialist’, is an EXACT counterpart to John Moore’s smear of Celia Farber, condemning her because he suspects she wants to sell her book.

    To conclude from somebody’s (alleged) desire to be succesful, rich, sell books or whatever that that somebody is morally ruthless if and only if that somebody happens to be a ‘denialist’ is a typical AIDS Inc. logical disconnect. For the judge to repeat this peculiar fallacy is an instance of an identical point expressed in a stylistically identical way – as should be obvious from the juxtaposed quotes.

    It seems some people need their hands held all the way even when it comes to the plainest of observations.

    Perhaps Mr. Houston will now take us by the hand and lead us to the original publication wherein it is claimed that the micrograph he has linked is of purified/isolated HIV particles + from what they were isolated and how.

  44. Robert Houston Says:

    Thank you, Mr. MacDonald, for that clarification.

    Michael and MacD: The micrograph to which I linked in my last comment was not submitted as proof of HIV or as an example of purfication. It was simply a group photo, such as Simon Daniel seemed to have requested. Since there’s part of a cell in the photo, it must be from cell culture and not from purified virus. I have no details except that it was provided by Edward C. Klatt, M.D., Dept. of Pathology, University of Utah, and is cited by NIAID at its website.

    As I mentioned before and as Simon agreed, it’s doubtful that any electron micrographs would be accepted by the Perth Group as proof of HIV existing. They couch their demand for such evidence in a Catch-22: that such a photo be of material purified by the density gradiant technique, which they know very well also concentrates cellular microvesicles at the density for retroviruses (1.16 g/ml). Dr. Gallo addressed this very problem in his testimony to the court, in which he pointed out that subsequent cultivation of the isolated material in cell culture achieves a far greater concentration and relative purification since the virus replicates in new T-cells but microvesicles don’t.

  45. MacDonald Says:

    I wouldn’t know if the Perth Group would never accept any photo. But their argument wouldn’t have gained the traction it has if there were better answers to their challenge from the HIV scientists. On at least a couple of occasions, for instance the BMJ debate, the Perth Group have made the challenge even more pointed by saying, as Simon does, that a picture similar to the DeHarven’s would do, and that purification by any method (‘old fashion’ purification that is, as opposed to isolation by cloning) 95% percent purification, or however much is reasonable to expect for viral purification would be acceptable to them.

    Their main ‘opponent’ in the BMJ game was Brian Foley. His utter failure to come up with anything whatsoever in spite of page upon page of his characteristic longwinded techno-goobledygook, as exposed to rather humorous effect here,

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/foleys_folly.pdf

    was so notable that it was brought up by the defence in the Parenzee case.

    I cannot tire of repeating that whether the mising photo really = missing evidence for the existence of the virus, the HIV experts’ answers to the question demonstrate beyond all doubt DeHarven’s and Rebecca Culshaw’s, as well as Duesberg’s larger points, that the HIV era is an era of declining scientific standards in virology and molecular biology.

    In fact, Mr. Houston has presented as a good a case as the expert witnesses in the Parenzee trial. Dr. Elizabeth Dax, director of the Australian National Serology Laboratory with responsibility for “the quality of HIV, hepatitis and blood-borne viral testing in Australia”, referenced the exact same pictures (among a couple others) as Mr. Houston,

    http://garlan.rethinkingaids.info/Cases/Parenzee/Dax-Exhibits/particles-in-culture.jpg

    and her answer to further questions were exactly the same as Mr. Houston’s – on second hearing!

    His Honour: Can you tell us where those photos come from?

    Elizabeth Dax: No I can’t tell you exactly what the source is. I can go back to the internet and find any number of those. These are not from my lab. We don’t know electronmicroscopy – similarly with the others that have been tendered. I can go back to the original site. If you would like me to send that information, I can. I took those photos off the internet.

    Kevin Borick (defence lawyer): I object to the tender

    His Honor: I’ll allow them in. Dr. Dax says she will give us the source of them and I propose to allow them.

    The judge allows the photos in apparently because this is the kind of meticulous preparation and scientific rigour we’ve all come to expect from a top notch HIV scientist.

    The following several pages the court hears and accepts testimony from an ‘expert’ who has just admitted she is not an expert on what she is presenting, pertaining to photos that didn’t come from her own lab and that have no source apart from the ‘internet’, on the promise that prof. Dax will go back and do another surf of the unnamed sites she got them from!!!

    May I remind that this is the same judge who later dismisses the Perth wholesale for not being expert and professional enough in their presentation!

    By the time of the summations, according to Borick, the defence had still not received the sources of the supposed HIV photos

    In the Decision, judge Sulan writes: I reject the submission [that the photographs cannot be admitted as evidence]. Dr Dwyer said photograph Exhibit P70 was sourced from a publication titled, “Current Opinion in Microbiology from 2006…

    The judge goes on to quote the other experts in turn as saying many HIV photos from many sources are in circulation.

    In other words, on the strength of one sourced HIV photo, the judge decides to allow all HIV EMs as evidence. Of course Borick’s point is not that the photos cannot be sourced, but that if they aren’t the defence cannot analyze and question them. So by this neat little trick, and with the kind assistance of judge Sulan, the AIDS Inc. A Team managed once again to avoid all meaningful discussion of the postulated HIV photos while getting all evidence from its admitted EM non-experts allowed.

    It is true, as Mr. Houston says, that the cloned material is purer than the original soup. But that is beside the point. What is cloned is not a viral particle but a piece of DNA/RNA out of the original soup. It is therefore not necessarily iluminating to say that one has isolated one’s (supposed) ‘virus’ from contaminating microvesicles by the cloning procedure.

    A more interesting issue would be the so called “infectious DNA” itself (the one that’s cloned) -whether cellular uptake and replication of this DNA is proof that it’s the DNA of a unique, existing in vivo, exogenous retrovirus.

    The Perth Group, needless to say, doesn’t think so in the case of cloned supposed ‘HIV’ DNA.

  46. Nick Naylor Says:

    Let me start by begging the indulgence of the audience since I still need to catch-up to the latter parts of the thread – which I’ve only skimmed – and start at the beginning, perhaps repeating some of the points above. All comments in response to this verdict deserve praise and are greatly appreciated. Frankly, I’m not very disturbed if Perth Group is having a rough go of it right now.

    TS: The simple fact is that they (Perth) are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed, The first order of business is to establish that HIV does not cause AIDS, a fact that is backed by all the literature of the field, unless you read it standing on your head. Quarrel with the existence or proved existence or valid isolation of the virus after that if you like, when it will be even more irrelevant. The notion that you need the latter to prove the former is ridiculous, as far as we are concerned.

    First, I’m seconding the criticism of the exclusive arrangement made by the defense with the Perth Group and agreeing with TS on the mistake of ignoring “the first order of business”. Also, it is appreciated that he featured David Crowe’s excellent post.

    One can look at the Judge Sulan’s decision – forcing a proper framing and “popularizing” of valid retroviral science – as a boon. And there’s no problem addressing the legitimate concerns of TS and Robert Houston – no more tin foil hats. (Of course every effort must be made to free Chad Parenzee.) However …

    The “simple fact” is there are no simple facts when it comes to untangling the mess that is retroviral taxonomy and the layers of confusion surrounding their genetics and biochemical activity in living organisms as a result of chronic diseases. Open questions re “isolation” are not “irrelevant” and have everything to do, for example, with the “simple fact” that it is very likely that one of the lentiviral strains, (which most certainly “exists”), stored on a plasmid at Los Alamos, easily concentrated by transfection and extraction, when injected into a chimp would cause immune suppression, thus “proving” a Koch postulate. But that’s an artifact, one might say. Exactly; here’s where the rubber hits the road and the “simple fact” that Duesberg and Perth draw the line at different locations cannot be used to discredit either of their arguments.

    Unfortunately, TS has also said the following: “But their distracting claim that HIV has not been effectively isolated is a stale red herring whose odor attaches itself to all critics of the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, a claim which is genuinely unproven and contradicted by the scientific literature … Perth lost the case …”

    His logic is flawed as explained below.

    Judge Sulan: Mr Borick QC, counsel for the applicant, set out the scope of the three propositions he sought to make during the course of the application:

    1. “firstly, that viruses are proven to exhibit by a procedure virologists refer to as virus isolation. The presently available evidence does not prove a virus known as HIV has been isolated.”

    2.“that the tests used to in effect diagnose HIV do not do that. What they do is that they measure not the virus itself but antibodies.”

    3.”no evidence for sexual transmission of HIV can be found even in the best conducted studies published from the United Kingdom, Europe, United States of America and Africa.”

    He went on to say: “The defence has not introduced and nor are we concerned with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS. HIV and AIDS, although generally linked in the public mind, are two separate and distinct issues. In this case, what is important is whether there is any scientific evidence whether Mr Parenzee is infected with the unique virus HIV.” END SULAN

    As far as 2) and 3), these are clearly true and should have been supported by expert testimony qualified in accordance with the law. Excluding “whether or not HIV causes AIDS” (with apologies to Mr Borick), strikes me as a stupid strategic error having nothing to do with the validity of Perth Group’s analysis of retroviral phenomena, which is explained next.

    In matters of “legal truth”, it is crucial for the attorney to be in control of his witnesses, apparently the reverse was the case here. The beliefs of expert witnesses hired by the defense are in one sense irrelevant. They are working in the field and instructed by counsel to tell the truth of the peer-reviewed studies. The target is the prosecution’s case and it’s not the Perth group’s fault that the judge was not led away from assuming the role of arbiter of the valid science behind the evidence that should have been presented to the jury.

    Sulan: “In assessing the effect on the trial jury, it will be necessary in turn to determine whether the evidence is credible, in the sense that a reasonable jury could accept it.”

    This means replacing Borick’s 1) with proper framing of the crucial FORENSIC points that need to be made, in this case:
    a) Not HIV doesn’t exist, but that a single “immune deficiency agent” has never been properly isolated and associated with the original AIDS diseases in accordance with Koch’s postulates as revised by e.g. NIH scientist Robert Huebner.
    b) Since it is acknowledged by HIV researchers that different “strains” have different biological properties, the only way Parenzee could “know” that he is infected with an active immune-deficiency virus capable of causing harm to sexual partners is for him to be informed that such an entity is biochemically active with a particular strain that is capable of reproducing the complete RNA genome by a scientifically valid test that satisfies the theoretical “hijacking” and “reproduction” properties that are within the competence of a jury to evaluate.
    Just because a “lentivirus” can have nucleotides different from an endogenous retrovirus, it doesn’t automatically follow that it is functionally-genetically distinct or has any greater power to reproduce itself. An individual’s endogenous retroviruses may be producing antigens or RNA that result in positive Elisa, Western Blot or viral-load tests.
    c) Fairness requires that “opinion evidence” presented to the jury by the prosecution’s experts has to be challenged by the defense’s experts to meet this burden of distinctive biological behavior beyond the “viruses in all of us”.

    As a matter of justice, the appeal could have been granted on the common-sense basis of Perth’s testimony raising reasonable doubt with special instructions to the lower court that expert witnesses for the defense must be requalified on the basis of Sulan’s criteria.

    TS: Not to mention that Duesberg himself powerfully, cogently and conclusively dismissed the Perth Group’s reasoning ten years ago on the existential issue …

    Here, our precious blog host, while quite competent at cutting and pasting Duesberg’s side of the debate, has, dare I say it, gone off the rails. Why not do the same with the Perth response, giving more fairness to this proceeding? I deeply regret the necessity of going right up to the line and deploying my own “power-words” and hope for the indulgence of our gentlemanly host that he not censor me.

    But … as clearly evidenced in past posts, at least there is improvement beyond the “talking-points” he deployed, now in addition to repeating “power-words” like “powerfully” and “cogently”, there is substance offered to back up the opinion. Which, of course, as Judge Sulan would highlight, is not “expert” but it could meet the lower standard laid on Val Turner: the reading and comprehending of appropriate reports and published papers. Such an exercise on TS’ part is commendable since we now have a substantive exchange beyond catch phrases and he is proving to readers of this blog that he wants to know what he is talking about. Which we all agree is a matter of great importance for those seeking the truth.

    Hopefully soon a Part 2: Sulan “I accept his evidence that the debate about HIV, whether it causes AIDS and whether it is sexually transmissible by heterosexual vaginal sexual intercourse, is a debate that was completed by the mid-1980s.” He brings us right to the Gallo et al 1985 Nature paper on the sequencing of HTLV III with the evidence he accepted to form his conclusion that the “debate was completed”. The matter “adequately isolated and sequenced” (RH) starts there, also, considering the references.

    Subsequent TS statements: “2. This retrovirus strand has been repeatedly sequenced by many people in different labs throughout the world who have come up with the same sequence of 9 kilobases. 3. The variations in the sequences are in one case sufficiently large that you have HIV-1 and HIV-2, but in most cases rather small so you have different strains of HIV”; have been countered elsewhere and in this thread but will be re-addressed with mainstream citations backing the statement: different strains of “HIV-1” have different biological properties. Realize they have defined distinct SUBTYPES of “HIV-1”.

  47. Truthseeker Says:

    Nick, we hope we are correct in our attempt to italicize your quotes, which you overlooked but which is helpful to readers.

    TS: The simple fact is that they (Perth) are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed,

    This statement merely refers to a political fact, not necessarily approvingly. The prejudice excited by their stand against the existence of HIV, whether justified or not, is immense, and counterproductive, whatever truth there is hidden in whatever they argue on this point. Those that try to show that the literature of HIV∫AIDS contradicts the causal paradigm have a hard enough time winning a hearing without being tainted by the Perth self-immolation. We are not talking science, but politics.

    If in all you have written there is a better case to be made for some of the Perth arguments, can you give us the bottom line? Questioning the tests is something that we believe is perfectly valid in the eyes of all, whether they believe the argument succeeds or not. Whatever contributions Perth has made to that, and we believe they are major and valid in terms of suggesting there are many cross reactions confounding the results and anyhow the link between the presence of virus and antibody tests is thin indeed, should have been central to the case. We are about to post on that topic (the meaning of tests), but will wait till you clarify, if we may, since we plan to go to an event celebrating Winston Churchill as an orator, and a gentleman, and one who stuck to his guns in the face of the mob, and brought it round with tact and manipulation and appeal to emotion and not reason, which he knew was inappropriate, even before the WWW brought this point home with its revelations of how little reason is involved in all human affairs, even in whole fields of science.

  48. Truthseeker Says:

    Nick, we hope we are correct in our attempt to italicize your quotes, which you overlooked but which is helpful to reader.

    TS: The simple fact is that they (Perth) are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed,

    This statement merely refers to a political fact, not necessarily approvingly. The prejudice excited by their stand against the existence of HIV, whether justified or not, is immense, and counterproductive, whatever truth there is hidden in whatever they argue on this point. Those that try to show that the literature of HIV∫AIDS contradicts the causal paradigm have a hard enough time winning a hearing without being tainted by the Perth self-immolation. We are not talking science, but politics.

    If in all you have written there is a better case to be made for some of the Perth arguments, can you give us the bottom line? Questioning the tests is something that we believe is perfectly valid in the eyes of all, whether they believe the argument succeeds or not. Whatever contributions Perth has made to that, and we believe they are major and valid in terms of suggesting there are many cross reactions confounding the results and anyhow the link between virus and antibody tests is thin indeed, should have been central to the case. We are about to post on that topic (the meaning of tests), but will wait till you clarify, if we may, since we plan to go to an event celebrating Winston Churchill as an orator, and a gentleman, and one who stuck to his guns in the face of the mob, and brought it round with tact and manipulation and appeal to emotion and not reason, which he knew was inappropriate, even before the WWW brought this point home with its revelations of how little reason is involved in all human affairs, even in whole fields of science.

  49. MacDonald Says:

    If in all you have written there is a better case to be made for some of the Perth arguments, can you give us the bottom line

    Mr. Blo’ host, if in all you have written there is anything that even remotely resembles a case against Perth’s arguments, can you give us the bottom line while we wait with baited breath to have the meaning of ‘the tests’ exlained.

    BTW, will that be before or after your exegesis of John Moore’s peer reviewed proof that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

    Will it be before or after Winston, who knew tact, appeal to emotion and ‘manipulation’ is the proper way to go about things. Perhaps you’d like to suggest ‘Obama bin Manipulatin’ for the other thread to show how decent and tactful a quality that is?

    O and inquiring minds really want to know, do you think WC reads your blog?

  50. Truthseeker Says:

    Good try, MacDonald, mildly irritating but not urbanely witty enough to get a response, other than to say the case against Perth has just been made in summary in this gold medallion blog’s recent posts, which apparently you haven’t read yet. You also don’t seem to have cottoned on to the fact that we were referring to the WWII Winston, not the current one, and John Moore is up on the pedestal next, yes, as the dissident’s best friend. More than that, however, we cannot say, since sharp wit, like masterly satire, must be extremely sophisticated and deadly to provoke a like response here, given all the other scientifically illuminating posts that have gone by the board while we wrestle with the Obama a Bummer or Deluded Do-Gooder conundrum without your help or a firm decision by Marcel, who has not replied to any of our talking points.

    Is English difficult for you, MacDonald, since as we know it is not your native language? We ask merely for information, in a helpful spirit, since we are prepared to spell things out even more simply if you wish. The reference was in how to deal with the mob, not extremely distinguished, independent minded and very well informed gentlemen and ladies of the highest calibre, who make up the reaership of this exclusive blog, such as yourself.

  51. MacDonald Says:

    For someone who tells me in no uncertain terms he cannot be bothered answering you have been very generous: the above + an email all on the same “mildly irritating” comment. But why would it be irritating to you? That’s an odd way of reacting to earnest inquiry.

    Why can you not accept that I’m one of those “not extremly distinguished or independent minded” readers that make up the demographics of this blog accoridng to its owner? I do not have your keen insight, and I’m certainly not as well read. I simply cannot follow you on your intellectual flights, covering leagues of arcane material with the winged feet of Hermes himself. I ask, therefore, on behalf of your not so well informed readership, if you could possibly provide a simpler version understandable to the layman. By this request I merely personify that “helpful spirit” your readership needs to get to the bottom line of your, perhaps overly erudite – yes such an occasional sin I think you must own – argumentation.

    In short, if your English is too difficult for me, it is per definition you who is not yet a master orator; you who is not yet quite of WC’s stature when it comes to “manipulation and emotional appeal”, but somewhat nearer “inarticulate scientists”, such as DeHarven. But this is an understandable and forgiveable flaw in such a high flying intellect: all I and your other plodding readers ask is if you could possibly be persuaded to let a little gas out of your balloon and fly closer by us terrestrially destined grunts, so as to add to the sublime an equal measure of clarity and… dare one add, brevity?

    Neither do I possess the kind of privileged access to the thoughts and motives of leading political figures of all ages that you do: I couldn’t aspire to have Bill Clinton read my editorials as you have informed me he does yours – thereby identifying himself to you as one of those “not extremely distinguished, independent minded and very well informed gentlemen and ladies ” that are drawn to your exclusive blog by the clever way the host’s truths are revealed on it.

    On 5/9/07, Anthony Liversidge wrote:

    By the way, since you dont understand what is going on, let me tell you. The hot velvet is for newcomers ie intelligible to Clinton etc

    Just as science looks like magic to the savages whom your native island empire, once led by WC, bestowed its merciful gift of civilization on, to me your cozy kinship with those powerful political figures and the similar ways in which you lead us, your faithful readership, here in NARnia on the path to scientific, political and emotional truth according to our limited measure, seems like purest magic to me. In truth, all your high and mighty and important politicking is all as fantastical as the inhabitants of the nutty professor’s wardrobe to my limited understanding: If Clinton is among the emotionally manipulated readers of your hot (air) velvet, why not WC or Gerald Ford?

    Or Napoleon?

  52. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, I think we are making some progress on this vexing issue. I appreciate your distinction on the political versus the scientific; again, it’s where the rubber hits the road. This is why I emphasized the importance of proper framing since obviously the “legal” grounds the “political”.

    Example: since you brought up global warming some time back and the importance of allowing those “heretics” a proper space, what can we say about the political implications? Obviously a lot, and this is not the place to go into that debate, but I think you get the larger point that charges of “anti-science” are right on the lips of those we can call the “Gorists”. Those on the side of the heretics, let’s say because of their investigations into the science, must also defend themselves against charges of being tools of the oil companies. And their position will be happily caricatured by zealous Gorists (usually the people who don’t understand the science on their own side) so they too must make efforts which they’d rather not to rip the propeller beanies off.

    It’s fair to say that the global warming heretics are having the same debates as us. Especially significant is their public framing: the acknowledgement that global warming “exists”.

    So we have the same political challenge even with the science of Peter Duesberg, as should be obvious by the SA editorial accompanying the aneuploidy article: “The biological community has roundly rebutted that claim (HIV is not the cause of AIDS) many times … This article is in NO SENSE an endorsement by Scientific American of his AIDS theories.” (emphasis added)

    Given all the emotional minefields that we know so well, we make progress and move our discussion forward with the clearest possible communiques; I’m presenting this one as an example.

    As far as the specificity problem with the antibody tests, we agree that Perth has made substantive contributions on that important issue. Since I wasn’t heading in that particular direction, don’t let me hold up whatever you’re going to post on that.

    My Part 2 will cover the isolation of lentiviral 70S RNA and SYNTHETIC versus 70S RNA template directed reverse transcription using separation and extraction technology (ultracentrifugation, chromatographic columns, etc – Gallo et al 1980-1985) considering the “Perth frame”. I realize that’s a mouthful and will try to make it as digestible and entertaining as possible. 70S RNA is the theoretical dimeric (2 X 9.5kb) lentiviral genome, what should be entering a T-cell in accordance with the standard model.

  53. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS: “Nick, we hope we are correct in our attempt to italicize your quotes, which you overlooked but which is helpful to readers.”

    Need help here, how to format is not obvious.

  54. Robert Houston Says:

    Welcome back, Nick! (AKA “Simone”?)

    In answer to your question, the software in this blog recognises HTML tags, so to italicize one just uses the tag for italics. For example, the following without the spaces would produce italics :

    passage to italicize

    One can also use the standard HTML tag to link to another website. Here, for example, is a link to Google Scholar’s collection of over 1000 studies in scientific journals providing electron micrographs of HIV.

    Of course, all such data is irrelevant to dedicated Perthians, who somehow find a nuclear physicist (Eleni Papadopulos) more credible on the issue of viral existence than a retrovirologist such as Peter Duesberg.

  55. Robert Houston Says:

    I’ll try that again: to italicize just use the following format: less than sign + i + greater than sign + passage to italicize + less than sign + / + i + greater than sign.

  56. MacDonald Says:

    I find it very disturbing that Mr. Houston in spite of 25 years of accumulated evidence finds Peter Duesberg, one discredited scientist who has never himself worked with HIV, more credible than every other of the several thousand experts in the field who has, including several Nobel prize winners and giants like Robert Gallo.

    I find it even more disturbing that Mr. Houston applauds the practice of editing and publishing other people’s work to suit one’s own political ideology without seeking the prior consent of the author. Very disturbing indeed.

    But no doubt most disturbing of all are his tortuous explanations of how to italicize. Like this without the spaces:

    text

  57. MacDonald Says:

    Hmm, it seems I owe Mr. Houston an apology on the last and most important point. That was NOT how it showed up in the preview.

  58. Truthseeker Says:

    MacDonald, seems to us that the Duesberg position is well reasoned and the Perth one is not. So who is right has nothing to do with credit or discredit. Rather, it works the other way round. Duesberg gets the credit because he gives sound reasons in accordance with the evidence of the literature and experience, and the Perth group are self-discredited because they don’t accept the evidence and experience but can’t effectively explain why they are not enough to overcome their doubts, yet they continue to make claims they fail to justify that the attributes of HIV are not certain and well enough defined.

    However wrong this seems to you perhaps you could try to couch your comments in a more constructive fashion instead of what appears to us to be a continual attempt at put down without much substance, since the whole endeavor here is to throw light on these issues rather than just disagree about them. As far as our own questionable performance goes, you already made your point about how outrageous it is to edit any writer’s work without their consent, and it has been answered as best we can. Why not try and answer the points made against your view or simply leave it alone?

    Simply put, why not adopt a style that respects others, even if they appear arrogant and foolish to you? We have found that it seems to work better. If you had credited Houston’s intelligence in the first place you would have recognized the problem instead of being caught by it!

    For Nick’s benefit, we’ll try and probably fail too. You italicise by putting < then i then > before the phrase and then < then / then i then > after it.

    Let’s see if that works or is obliterated!

  59. SimonDaniel Says:

    Robert Houston has assured us that at the density for retroviruses (1.16), microvesicles from the cells are also found.

    In light of this I propose that HIV is transmitted by infectious microvesicles!

    Given that some micrographs of “purified HIV” show a mixture of (what appear to be) retroviral particles and microvesicles, and others (from this page) show pretty much only microvesicles, the logical assumption is that the microvesicles themselves are carrying infectious HIV RNA.

  60. MacDonald Says:

    Mr Truthseeker,

    I see you have not been forthcoming re my request for solid arguments: you and Mr. Houston repeat your appeal to Duesberg’s authority over and. I don’t see how that throws light on anything but your bias.

    Is your lack of response due to your unfamiliarity with “the infectious clone” issue which you referred to in your Duesberg cut and paste. Or do you just not wish to get any more technical for fear Clinton might lose interest?

    I’m asking you once again, why don’t you,

    1. “throw light” on the crucial “infectious clone” issue for us, so everybody can see exactly where Perth is wrong.

    2. “throw light” on the “well defined HIV attributes’ vis a vis Lynn Margulis and Rebecca Culshaw’s claims to the contrary that I still have seen no response to.

    3. I have not seen your answer to why it’s ok to edit without consent. I accept that an editor’s job is to edit – since when is it an editor’s to edit and publish changed text without consent? That is the issue. I don’t think anybody here but Mr. Houston is in the least bit interested in finding a solution to your bad phonetics.

    So come on, be a little constructive now and just answer. Don’t you realize how plain it is to everybody how desperately you’re trying to waffle your well upholstered bottom out of your own challenge.

  61. Truthseeker Says:

    Same old, same old, MacDonald, you really are becoming a bit of a stuck record. Our faint suspicion that you are merely the paid agent provocateur of a rival blogger, as Mark Biernbaum reported was revealed in email from the good Dr Casablanca to him and others urging that this blog be undermined with antagonistic and spurious comments is beginning to grow again, after a lull where we almost thought you had something to say that was your own genuine opinion and offering. This is a reference blog, let us remind you, where we hope that Comments will be serious contributions as a rule, or at least extremely witty diversions that serve as icing on the cake, or light relief for the earnest endeavor of saving lives that is the fundamental objective of the blog host, who would appreciate it if you you would permanently stop referring to him as the “blo’ host”, as this is all too close to “blowhard”, as presumably intended.

    In rejecting Perth’s view on the reality of HIV we do not appeal to Duesberg’s authority, though we respect it out of familiarity with his record as one of the few fully paid up geniuses of the modern scientific era, one of the Nobel committee’s mistakes in not granting that honor to him, but instead awarding it to mediocrities who every day make jackasses out of themselves subscribing to the insupportable advanced by the venal as inscrutable truth.

    Apparently you are unwilling to study Duesberg’s dismissal of Perth for some reason so let’s state it as simply in lay terms as we can for you. The fact that you can clone and infect with HIV demonstrates its separate identity and its viability as an independent entity, and any discussion of whether we are mistaking microvesicles for a retrovirus is null and void, a view stuck in the anachronistic fascination Perth have for critiquing Montagnier’s insufficient separation out of HIV, which is a weakness that was soon filled in by Gallo, who had a field day agreeing with the Perth group in the court case on that point, ie delighting in sticking it to Montagnier and crowing about his own superiority in this regard, since he established the plain and simple fact that you could concentrate HIV by growing the darn thing in culture, and in so culturing the virus and not any microvesicles (which will not culture) demonstrating what we are dealing with, however wrong and unjustified he might have been in trying to force HIV into being a candidate for the sole cause of immune deficiency, which all evidence then or since contradicts.

    As to your repetitive repetitiveness about our editing Marcel’s copy albeit in one respect and one respect only, and willingness to change it according to his wishes subsequently if he offered an acceptable alternative, read and post on this topic on the appropriate thread (Bitter about Obama). We have just answered you without even seeing your post here, which is par for the course, since you are merely repeating yourself all the time, though slightly less urbanely than before. Is this the equivalent of Thai kick boxing in a literate venue?

    As such, the war on breastfeeding is perhaps best understood as a part of the medical establishment’s proven formula for future profits.

    This was the conclusion of your post yesterday on YBYL. We are wondering, is this edited by yourself or by the ruler of that group blog, Dr Casablanca? Either way, it seems to us to be a mouse issuing forth from a mountain. Are we missing something?

    And allow us to ask, are we missing something in general in your contributions here, which are so regular in their incessantly undermining stance without any balancing contribution of new and interesting material? Forgive us, but they are beginning to seem more and more as not much more than dutiful but increasingly uninspired attacks on the value of this blog as if you are a paid agent of a rival blogger, as intending to be disruptive without constructive purpose as the efforts of Chris Noble or Richard Jefferys, those lay agents of the paradigm defense bosses who were earlier chased off this site with reason and literature expertise they could not refute.

    Surely you would not wish to give that impression?

  62. MacDonald Says:

    Phew!! That’s a mouthful. But I think I’ve managed to isolate one (admirably typed and spell checked) sentence that is not pure inconsistent waffle and innuendo – which IS progress:

    The fact that you can clone and infect with HIV demonstrates its separate identity and its viability as an independent entity

    This, I take it is your argument in a nutshell. Thank you for putting it in layman’s terms (is that not your self-appointed function on this blog. Why should that be more difficult than pulling hen’s teeth?)

    Unfortunately, I must confess that I, as layman, am still confused. You are talking about HIV’s “separate identity.” Separate from what? Nobody has said a piece of DNA cannot be separate. All pieces of DNA have a separate identity. How does that make it ‘HIV’? How does it make it identical with the uncountable strains and subtypes of ‘HIV’ claimed to exist?

    By ‘HIV’, do you mean genomic fragments, viral particles of a certain morphology or perhaps reverse transcriptase activity?. How does the fact that you can clone a piece of infectious DNA prove it exists and is ‘viable’ as a unique retroviral particle outside the artificial lab conditions?

    Anyway, now that you’ve finally re-engaged, you shouldn’t have to deal with my lack of comprehension. I’m pleased to deliver the Perth Group’s answer that you didn’t have the stamina to go through. It’s Duesberg in citation marks and Perth in italics, all from the Continuum debate:

    “…such infectious nucleic acids initiate replication of virus in uninfected cells from which new virus particles are subsequently released”.

    This may be the case with the genome of other infectious agents but this has never been shown for the genome of HIV.

    “…infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected cells several times by molecular cloning”.

    Retroviruses are not “cloned, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases” but “enveloped viruses with a diameter of 100-120 nm budding at cellular membranes. Cell released virions contain condensed inner bodies (cores) and are studded with projections (spikes, knobs)”. (25) Furthermore, such particles share the physical property of banding at a density of 1.16 gm/ml in sucrose density gradients, a fact long used in their isolation . Cloning of a virus is defined as obtaining EXACTLY the same virus by introducing its genome into a cell. However, to date, nobody has reported such particles by “cloning, infectious HIV DNA of 9150 bases”, or DNA of any other length. In fact, nowhere in the HIV literature can one find particles which have “a diameter of 100-120 nm” AND which are “studded with projections (spikes, knobs)”, let alone such particles banding at 1.16 gm/ml in sucrose density gradients. Since cloning is a process leading to the production of an exact copy of whatever object one starts with, how can one claim cloning of something before there is proof that it ever existed?

    As a bonus I will quote Perth showing that for them, as for me, this issue is inseparable from the semantics:

    In debating the proof for the existence of a unique, exogenous retroviral agent one cannot adopt as an initial premise (“Full- length HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNAs…”) that is contingent upon proof of the argument (“ergo…HIV exists and has been isolated”). The a priori designation of a particular fragment of DNA as “HIV DNA” merely begs the question under consideration.

  63. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS,

    Science is nothing if it’s not based on accurate measurement.

    Following the above post by MacDonald, the term of art is “unpacking”: laying out the details and determining if there were significant measurement inaccuracies in certain cell-culture experiments during a crucial period. This is in the context of phenomenological issues – we’re talking about life and death – not lab quality control. So these experiments should indeed be re-assessed by the “non-qualified” public. Maybe they can actually tell us about putative retroviral behaviors in living organisms. Or maybe not. Science beyond “authorities” means it’s fair to scrutinize the series of experiments by Gallo et al and dare to be wrong in concluding that the recombined bits of RNA that finally wound up as the “HTLV III cDNA” sequenced in 1985 was not about isolating any virus.

    Look, Gallo did indeed increase the “processivity” of reverse transcriptase (RT) reactions in his cell cultures beyond previous investigators. For the HTLVs, a synthetic polyribonucleotide template annealed to an oligo-deoxyribonucleotide primer was used that multiplies the RT reaction-rate way beyond the rate using the “natural” genomic RNA template. This produced those impressive graphs, but at the very least complicates the measurement: “purified virus mass production” – production of what? – if the 70S RNA is not participating in the reaction.

    If you want to believe the matter is settled by “cDNA isolation”, fine! All we’re offering is to provide some details of how that cDNA was obtained as a critique of court-qualified so-called expert witness testimony. Obviously, such a witness, permitted to give “opinion evidence” may not be knowledgeable of what’s actually going on. It’s a set of narrow criteria, if you read the judge’s decision, where many things important can be omitted due to the ultraspecialization required of those who are going to be qualified. The catch 22 of the post-Daubert era.

    BTW, it’s not even an “island of two”, which was Judge Sulan’s unfair characterization. Fast forwarding to 21st century “HIV” research, we find a long list of cellular proteins, characterized as “virion” components, that co-fractionate in that famous 1.16 sucrose band, hardly “pure virus”.

  64. Nick Naylor Says:

    Let’s start this post with an apology to the long-suffering readers who’ve been wading through the endlessly boring technical terms. I’ve done my best in the last few days to make this presentation as clear as possible to the non-specialist. Additionally, there is now, I believe, an additional epidermal layer that can bear the fair criticisms and demands for clarification sure to come from the sharp pen of our blog host. The premise, of course, is that the technobabble is necessary for us to grasp the full import of Judge Sulan’s decision.

    First, a review of the technology of separation and extraction, well established by 1980 and used to observe the RNA genomic material and reverse transcriptase (RT) activity of animal retroviruses. Various experimental methodologies were developed by the 70’s using basic building blocks: the ultracentrifuge, the chromatographic column and techniques with radioactive tracers for visualizing the nucleic acids and proteins of interest. Analyses of ultracentrifuge separations that remove particles from liquid suspensions, of course, are found throughout Perth’s published papers and reports. My brief and no doubt inadequate review is intended to convey how much “art” and “framing” goes into the reporting of the “techne” and hopefully gives a sense of why published papers may not represent the “ontos”.

    There are two types of quantitative density-gradient measurements deployed in the ultracentrifuge: sedimentation equilibrium (buoyant or isopycnic) and sedimentation velocity (rate-zonal). An example of the first is the by-now familiar sucrose media, while the latter can be used to provide a size indicator for RNA macromolecules in Svedberg units (S). S, in turn, can be converted to molecular weight using algorithms constructed from empirical data. 35S converts to approximately 8 – 9 kb of single-stranded RNA, a typical animal retroviral genome.

    The centrifuge “rotor” (which looks something like a pump impeller) turns at low, high and very high rpms simulating “g forces” many thousands of times the magnitude of gravity and it’s designed so that the centrifugal force causes solutes (particles) to separate from solutions. It can be compared to a container of liquid with particles that eventually settle to the bottom as a result of normal gravity, except the process is greatly speeded up by the machine and the material at the bottom becomes a “pellet” because of the great amount of force. Within the rotor a tube with the sample e.g. a cell “homogenate” (suspension), is fitted. Multiple centrifuging steps with pellets resuspended in solution are usually required to achieve “purification”.

    A chromatographic column is simple in principle. An adsorbent with an “affinity” (based on subtle chemical interactions) for the macromolecule of interest is densely packed within a solid matrix in the column. A small amount of the liquid sample flows through from the top and the macromolecules bind to the adsorbent. The column is then “eluted” by a specific reagent to remove the macromolecules which are dialyzed to remove the reagent.

    Keep in mind, these descriptions are quite incomplete, since there are as many variations and developments as one can imagine with 50 years of any modern technology.

    The first published HTLV paper by Gallo et al (Poiesz, B. J., Ruscetti, F. W., Gazdar, A. F., Bunn, P. A., Minna, J. D. & Gallo, R. C.;1980) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 77, 7415-7419) describes the establishment of an “immortal” cell line – HUT 102 – from a lymph node biopsy of a lymphoma patient. This was not the first such cell-line for “human retrovirus” observation; another research group is referenced that had been working with a human lymphoma derived cell-line known as DHL-1. They (R.S. Goodenow and H.S. Kaplan; Characterization of the reverse transcriptase of a type C RNA virus produced by a human lymphoma cell line. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 October; V76: 4971–4975) performed calibrations on fast reverse transcriptase (RT) reaction rates comparing synthetic poly(rA)-oligo(dT) templates with much slower (by a factor of several orders of magnitude) “natural” 70S genomic-template directed RT reactions. In the 1980 “detection and isolation of type C retroviruses”, Gallo et al observed the RT “polymerase activity” from the “peak fraction” extracted from HUT 102 cell homogenates to be 100,000 cpm, i.e. radioactively labelled “counts” per minute of an incorporated marker nucleoside triphosphate. Goodenow and Kaplan measured 75,000 cpm using affinity chromatographic separation of human reverse transcriptase from “core material”. Gallo et al state: “Purified HTLV(CR) particles also have a poly(A) containing 70S RNA, which will be described elsewhere.” Indeed, in a paper “communicated by David Baltimore” three months later.

    Gallo’s genius was to convert the peak-fraction biochemical techne of Goodenow and Kaplan into the ontos retroviral “continous mass production” by 1984. So what exactly is this peak fraction? It is presented in research papers as a plot of DNA polymerase activity: i.e., the incorporation of deoxyribonucleotides adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine into a DNA polymer strand; vs the number of assayed “fractions” collected from the multi-step separation and extraction process. It was extracted from cell-line homogenates by serial centrifugations that produced pellets at the bottom and supernatant at the top. The next sample to be processed can be the supernatant or the resuspended pellet. When the processed sample from the “crude steps” is applied to sucrose density-gradient media (lightest gradient bands on “top” down to the heaviest on “bottom”), “fractions” are produced. During the spinning, reverse transcriptase at 1.16 g/ml density reaches equilibrium (buoyancy) with the same density band in the sucrose media. The “middle” one of the “25 fractions” which represents the highest concentration of reverse transcriptase is “assayed” – reaction rate observed – to be at the peak of the curve. This extraction from the original cell homogenate is called “purification”.

    Next, we look behind the following from the CDC’s MMWR, July 13, 1984 / 33(27);377-9: A morphologically similar T-lymphotropic retrovirus (HTLV-III) was isolated from lymphocytes of 26 (36%) of 72 patients with AIDS and from 18 (86%) of 21 patients with conditions thought to be related to AIDS (Gallo RC, Salahuddin SZ, Popovic M, et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses [HTLV-III] from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science 1984;224:500-3.)

  65. sculdermully Says:

    So Nick. Is there any paper that shows perhaps, that the polymerase activity is found in virus-infected cells (or more correctly in the supernatant fluid outside the cells; they do not use cell homogenates as you suggest above), but not in uninfected cells? In other words, do any of the papers ever include a negative control?

    And now that you’ve got the centrifugation stuff all worked out, can you give us a summary of the making of the Lambda phage molecular clone from Gallo’s lab:

    Hahn BH, Shaw GM, Arya SK, Popovic M, Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F.
    Molecular cloning and characterization of the HTLV-III virus associated with AIDS.
    Nature. 1984 Nov 8-14;312(5990):166-9.
    PMID: 6095086

    What do you think this is that they cloned?

  66. Nick Naylor Says:

    Sculder,

    The early papers of the 70’s (Spiegelman et al) found “particles” with 70S template RNA directed reverse transcriptase from supernatant directly from primary cultures of human leukemic cells, Burkitt’s tumours and human histiocytic lymphomas. The “extent and performance” of the reactions – no mention of “priming” – was quite low compared to what was to come later.

    It seems to me that “infected cells”, according to the experiments by 1980, are the result of immortalization, co-cultivation, etc. And then later, the discovery of endogenous “infections” complicates further.

    I don’t know, but guess that somewhere there has been what some would consider the “right” negative controls. Is there such a “perfect” experiment?

    As far as the Hahn et al Nature paper, I have the “entire series” and intend to get there. What did they clone? Recombinant DNA.

    Don’t know about Gallo’s lab and the cloning of lambda phage, presumably they did a great job.

  67. drpsduke Says:

    Nick, What is this “priming” you speak of. All polymerases require a primer that is complementary to the template being transcribed or replicated. Poly-T for example is used to bind the poly-A tails of mRNAs in order to prime RT when making a cDNA library. Retroviruses us cellular transfer RNAs for this priming. Without a primer, there is nothing for the reverse transcriptase to extend.

    I haven’t looked at many papers from the 1970s and earlier, so I am not sure when the need for primers was discovered.
    HIV and all lentiviruses use the mammalian Lys-3 tRNA as their primer:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=rv.section.293
    http://www.rnajournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/10/1347

    The Gallo and Hahn 1984 paper Sculdermully put up, is about the first infectious molecular clone of HIV-1. It was proviral DNA cloned into the Lamda phage, for replication in E. coli. Putting this Lambda DNA into mammalian cells results in production of infectious HIV particles, RT activity, and all that.

  68. Bwian Says:

    Nick I don’t understand, why are you trying to confuse us? It is stated clearly that what is cloned is HIV-1 and that what’s produced is infectious HIV-1 particles, known by their HIV-1 specific ‘RT activity’. So why are you calling it “recombinant DNA” above? recombinant DNA is not the same as a viral particle.

    And while you’re thinking about the primers, could you also please tell us when the need for synthetic RNA templates was discovered?

    Anyway what’s all this got to do with ultracentrifugation? I do that twice a week at the launderette, and it doesn’t even separate light colors from dark ones, so don’t you think that’s a bit beside the point… I mean in this day and age?

  69. Nick Naylor Says:

    The terminology below will be: “first paper” = Gallo et al; Detection, Isolation and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV III) from Patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS; Science 1984; 224: 497-500. “next paper” = Gallo RC, Salahuddin SZ, Popovic M, et al. Frequent detection and isolation of cytopathic retroviruses [HTLV-III] from patients with AIDS and at risk for AIDS. Science 1984;224:500-3. “HTLV paper” = Poiesz, B. J., Ruscetti, F. W., Gazdar, A. F., Bunn, P. A., Minna, J. D. & Gallo, R. C. Detection and Isolation of Type C Retrovirus Particles from Fresh and Cultured Lymphocytes of a Patient with Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma (1980) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 77, 7415-7419

    Investigating the methods that obtained the world shattering results from these publications is well worth the effort in the continuing analysis of the implications of Judge Sulan’s decision. Herein is contained the initial citing of the criteria determining how a patient was declared “positive for HTLV III” in 1984 based on the RT techne described above. Since nucleic acids were not mentioned in these first and obviously very important instances of “HIV isolation”, these papers are especially noteworthy. Hopefully, this little presentation will successfully deconstruct the unprecedented concentration of cellular polymerase enzyme production – the fact is that it is at least that – masquerading as viral purification.

    At that time, it was not known that human cells contain open reading frames for reverse transcriptase (RT). This puts a different perspective on the “amazing” RT, not viral “production” graphs in those famous May – 1984 “first” and “next” papers, when considering that synthetic templates were used throughout. Nonetheless, they informed the Amazing Gallo’s testimony at Adelaide, when he redefined viral “purification” as viral “mass production”. Did this magnificent techne to ontos demonstration go completely over the judge’s head, or did he get what he was supposed to get? A legally qualified expert gave “opinion evidence” based on his authority as that legally qualified expert. Sounds tautological? Welcome to the post-Daubert world, a place where the “true expert”, based on what they’ve demonstrated to be valid by the ways of science, must give way to “court-qualified” specialists, those suitably compartmentalized scientists best capable of describing ultra-thin slices of reality. This huge problem in our justice system is, of course, the natural result of the decades old corporate campaign against “junk science”. So should we be surprised when a Judge Sulan feigns or appears to feign incomprehension over Val Turner’s testimony on what constitute’s a proper gold standard by which clinical tests of an alleged life-threatening virus should be measured? That he didn’t know what Turner was talking about, but understood Gallo perfectly?

    Also, in taking a closer look at what’s behind this particular Gallo-testified “gold standard” and being aware of Gallo et al’s synthetic template usage in the isolation experiments, we can assess the state of a jury’s potential comprehension of “HIV disease”. This, of course, was an implied gold standard according to the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. What they ignored was this lack of characterization of the genomic RNA from these early AIDS and lymphoma patients, precisely NONE in the 3 papers. But, nevertheless, Gallo et al stated, “here we describe the detection and isolation of HTLV III from a large number of patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS.” Interestingly, the “hit” ratio was higher with pre-AIDS than with AIDS. They go on to describe the use of “cell-culture conditions previously developed in our laboratory” for the “detection and isolation of HTLV I” and mention “primary cells from patients usually produce virus for 2 to 3 weeks” which means “reverse transcriptase activity in supernatant fluids” as measured by the RT techne.

    This series of separation, extraction, etc. steps was utilized in the “first” and “next” paper data presentations of RT “processive mode of action” as described in detail above for the HTLV paper. Essentially, it was the same, except here Gallo et al established 8 CELL-LINE clones of the “long term HT aneuploid cell-line”. The history of this “alien creature” received much intense scrutiny later and one can indeed wonder about the blizzard of references including the wonderful reference in the “first” paper to the “next” paper(!), but no mention of HUT 102. And, once again, I wonder, just wonder if all this smoke-screening had anything to do with the pressing need at this point to shift HTLV from a leukemic “transforming” retrovirus to a novel “cell-free transmissible” cytopathic retrovirus. Checking the “next” paper, we find not the name of the cell-line originally derived from a lymphoma patient in the HTLV paper, but another reference that finally brings us to this paper where one has to go to find the name of the original cell line: HUT 102. At this point, the excellent article in Science published years ago provides an excellent account for those who want to look further into this fascinating history.

    Now, it’s necessary to simplify since, alas, I’m convinced I’ve gone to far into technobabble. But the boring forensics is critical. Perhaps right now some readers are glazing over just like those parts of CSI, longing for the sex and action scenes. Anyway, Gallo et al did numerous RT technes and assays in those 1984 papers which have been described in great detail by the Perth Group. Here, let’s note that the “first” paper describes the “parental (cell) line” being co-cultivated with T-cell culture supernatant from the AIDS patients as described in the “next” paper. The supernatant was from “short-term cultures”, concentrated by the RT techne, thus “shown to contain particle-associated RT”. After “repeated exposure” by this “concentrated” supernatant, wa la, “continuous production of HTLV III”. Or … the previously described synthetic template (poly rA-oligo dT) was utilized to show the “highest particulate RT activity” and a “static” graph designed to show the “peak” or middle most-concentrated of the 16 fractions assayed in the “first” paper. Each assay of a fraction is based on using a scintillation counter to measure beta particles emitted by the tritium-labeled nucleotide (counts per minute) that’s being incorporated into the cDNA polymer strand by the polymerase “activity”. This becomes the vertical axis with the spike-like bell curve of the RT activity in each of the 16 “fractions” of the horizontal axis clearly showing the peak concentration of this activity at 1.16 g/ml., and according to Figure 2b of the “first paper”, new heights of 800,000 counts per minute. The best-ever concentration of RT activity morphed into purification.

    In the “next paper”, we get the bottom line of “detection and isolation” from AIDS patients. RT techne was applied to their peripheral blood leukocytes and assayed “activity” plus antibody detection (that famous “rabbit antiserum” to HTLV III) resulted in the first “HIV positives”. Nucleic acids were not involved in obtaining the low hit ratios: “from 26 (36%) of 72 patients with AIDS and from 18 (86%) of 21 patients with conditions thought to be related to AIDS”.

  70. Nick Naylor Says:

    Hi Bwian,

    Look, writing this stuff sucks as much as it does no doubt for those who are reading it. It is written in a format I used to use for technical reports for LAWYERS. Surely you understand that nothing can be as boring as a legal brief.

    I’m hoping the answers to your questions are somewhere in the mess above but now it’s tag you’re it – you have to do the work.

    i pwomise – more on recombinant dna

  71. Nick Naylor Says:

    drps,

    Yeah, priming is “priming”. Thanks for your explanations which are what I am speaking about.

    Right, the infectious DNA bit using Lambda phage. I think such a thing is true in vivo but one should look at cellular in-built defenses against foreign nucleic acids discovered since 1984. Will it make it to the chromosome and “exist’ in a proviral stage?

  72. Douglas Bishop Says:

    Nick,

    You lost me early along the way. I thought all I had to do was “follow the yellow brick road” and finally confront the Wizard with the truth. (Please excuse the analogy. I’m sure the writers here are cringing). Now I hear the Wizard say “Pay no attention the little man behind the curtain” while throwing diatribes of haranguement and techno babble from the one (present company excluded) who claims to be all knowing.

    Gallo et al. are simply a lot of hot air. They cannot explain the simple basic flaws and shortcomings of the HIV/AIDS paradigm so they ignore it and take a leap of faith into the abyss of viral load count and DNA cell therapy. I don’t want to study and learn their supposed technology. I do not have a mind that will delve into the so-called advance science. The great thing about Duesberg, Rasnick, Mullis, Geshekter, Farber, Crowe and other dissidents is that they boil the material down so the layperson can under it. I wish that one of them would write an article and debunk these new age charlatan HIV/AIDS researchers and activist.

  73. Bwian Says:

    Nick, I am no less confused. The RT activity, as stated by Gallo, was ‘particle related’. But you seem to say that there was no direct proof given of the presence of these ‘particles’. The best I see, according to you, is RT activity + antibodies. But I seem to remember that genomic sequencing and micrographic evidence followed the initial RT ‘measurements’ in rapid succession.

  74. Nick Naylor Says:

    Douglas,

    I’m with you.

    Please keep in mind that I’m going through Gallo et al 1980-1985 in this excruciating detail because it was such a lynchpin of Judge Sulan’s decision. The “hot air” was very convincing to the judge, if you read his decision, especially on Gallo’s – I have to say amazing coup – redefinition of “purification”. In other words, the old fox was ready to pounce.

    So a proper post-mortem to all this, IMHO, is answering the likely questions a lawyer defending someone in Parenzee’s circumstance would ask in order to assemble the right mix of expert witnesses and effectively cross-examine the prosecution’s experts. Nor am I the expert witness, but it is well known that a well-prepared trial lawyer can trip up an expert from the opposing side right at the very heart of her competence.

    And yes I do have some experience advising lawyers in analogous cases from the point of view of getting the witnesses who are most court-qualified, lessons from judicial decisions on rules of evidence, etc. “Generalists”, thanks in part to industry campaigns against “junk science”, are not likely to be court-qualified based on the US Supreme Court early 90’s decision: Daubert vs Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals

    So this techno-screed is as boring as the research it describes, but it is also meant to counter the idea of using Judge Sulan’s ruling to discredit the scientific validity of Perth’s theory.

    And I do have this strange fascination with Gallo based on SPECULATION that the “Karl Roves” of that era, namely Ed Meese and/or Michael Deaver, pressured him to announce before its time – (but well before the election – remember the “miracles” of the Teflon president?) – the “discovery” of THE AIDS VIRUS. “You’re doing a helluva job Brownie” type of thing except instead of failure, he pulled it off by 1985, which in the proper course of things would have been the time for peer critiques. But by then it was set in stone.

  75. Nick Naylor Says:

    drpsduke,

    I owe you more.

    “The Gallo and Hahn 1984 paper Sculdermully put up, is about the first infectious molecular clone of HIV-1. It was proviral DNA …”

    Yes, but it’s necessary to look at refence 15 of this paper for the characterization of the “poly (A) containing RNA” that was used for the “synthesis of this cDNA (that) was primed with oligo (dT) and reverse transcribed from poly (A) containing RNA …” which, of course, is NOT a synthetic template.

    And if I said in any previous post “plasmid” instead of “phage”, that would be an error for this specific instance.

  76. Nick Naylor Says:

    Bwian,

    I think RT particles, sometimes known as “retroviral cores”, or even retrotransposon “workstations” in the cytoplasm, have pretty good EM’s and are as proven as anything in science. In fact there’s a very nice picture accompanying the H Varmus late-80’s Scientific American Article of identical particles within a yeast cell – no budding.

    I’ll dig these out at some point for your reference.

  77. Bwian Says:

    Nick, forgive me for speculating but I think you are questioning more than just the ‘RT particles’.

    It was those other world shattering particles, the “cell-free transmissible cytopathic retrovirus” the RT activity was supposed to signify the presence of, and which as far as I can see it did since Gallo photographed and sequenced it, I was referring to.

    Are you uncomfortable with direct answers to direct questions, Nick? Lawyers and politicians…

  78. drpsduke Says:

    Nick,

    You should have a look at what came out of the Gallo/Montagnier issue over this particular clone. For example, Wain-Hobson et al were able to prove exactly which patient this clone was derived from.

    Wain-Hobson S, Vartanian JP, Henry M, Chenciner N, Cheynier R, Delassus S, Martins LP, Sala M, Nugeyre MT, Guetard D, et al. LAV revisited: origins of the early HIV-1 isolates from Institut Pasteur.
    Science. 1991 May 17;252(5008):961-5.
    PMID: 2035026
    ABSTRACT:
    Two of the first human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) strains isolated were authenticated by reanalyzing original cultured samples stored at the Collection Nationale de Culture des Microorganismes as well as uncultured primary material. Cloned polymerase chain reaction products were used to analyze coding sequences of the V3 loop in the gp120 glycoprotein. The original isolate HIV-1 Bru, formerly called LAV, was derived from patient BRU. HIV-1 Lai was derived from patient LAI and contaminated a HIV-1 Bru culture between 20 July and 3 August 1983. The culture became, in effect, HIV-1 Lai, identifiable by a unique motif in the V3 loop. Because of this contamination two, rather than one, HIV-1 isolates were sent to the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology at the National Cancer Institute on 23 September 1983. Original HIV-1 Bru was indeed present in the sample marked JBB/LAV. However the M2T-/B sample harbored HIV-1 Lai, a strain capable of growing on established cell lines. The striking similarity between HIV-1 Lai (formerly LAV-Bru) and HTLV-3B sequences remains.

    The original papers by Gallo’s group were not able to do that, because Popovic had mixed several serum samples together when he infected the cell line that became H9.

  79. Nick Naylor Says:

    I will take a look, but what hits me is how this same-sequence thing was used initially to show that the first “isloation” was confirmed by the second; i.e. they both found the same “virus”. And then years later it’s discovered to be an accident.

  80. Nick Naylor Says:

    No Bwian, i’m not, could you repeat the question?

  81. drpsduke Says:

    Nick,
    It was not an “accident”, it was just that the serum from several patients was mixed together. It was assumed that the same virus was in all patients, and it was. But it was later discovered that each HIV isolate is slightly different from all others, just as humans are all clearly human, but individuals can be identified by “DNA fingerprinting” looking at the very small differences between us.
    The “problem” in this case, was that the virus that was cloned happened to come from one of Montagnier’s French patients rather than from one of the USA patients. The French government and the USA government in the end agreed to split the fame and patents on the “discovery” of HIV-1. Thousands of other labs have since then cloned and sequence other HIV-1 isolates from thousands of other patients all over the world.

    If the Gallo and Montagnier clones are too “mixed up” for your tastes, then you should look at the other very early isolates from researchers who were not working together as Gallo’s and Montagnier’s groups were up until late 1983. Try J. Levy for example:

    Levy JA, Shimabukuro J, Hollander H, Mills J, Kaminsky L.
    Isolation of AIDS-associated retroviruses from cerebrospinal fluid and brain of patients with neurological symptoms.
    Lancet. 1985 Sep 14;2(8455):586-8.
    PMID: 2863599

    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

  82. sculdermully Says:

    Duke,

    Levy et al are just another cog in the AID$ wheel, you cannot understand where AID$ incorporated derailed the train, without going back to the first principles of the Perth Group. Despite the judge’s ruling in this case, Elani is in fact the world’s leading authority on virology. If she says that the virus has not been isolated, then it has not been isolated, no matter what Levy, Montagnier, Gallo and the rest of AID$ incorporated claim. Levy and the others are all paid to look at viruses, they are thus tainted by the greed factor. Elani remains pure, she has made no money studying virology.

  83. Nick Naylor Says:

    drpsduke, when I see the word “contamination”, given the normal objective of an experiment, it strikes me as unintended, an accident.

    But the point is I’m familar with the principle behind those initial studies 1985-1990 and don’t dispute the raw data or abilities of those who did the sequencing. They could very well have “modeled” the transfer of lymphocytes via anal sex and subsequent graft vs host reactions that resulted in retroviral transcriptions in new hosts. I believe Kary Mullis has hypothesized along these lines.

    But for the ultimate source of the cDNA, I say it’s back to the future considering papers like:

    Gillespie D, Gallo RC. RNA processing and RNA tumor virus origin and evolution. Science, 1975 May 23;188(4190):802-11.

    ABSTRACT: The results of molecular hybridization experiments with HIGH-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT* RNA isolated from RNA tumor viruses and DNA from normal cells suggest that RNA tumor virus genomes originate from cell genes. Some RNA tumor viruses (here called class 1) appear to have been generated in recent times in that their RNA is closely related in nucleotide sequence to certain cell genes (class 1 genes). A second class of RNA tumor viruses (here called class 2) is more distantly related to genomic information of normal cells. Structural properties of the RNA of RNA tumor viruses lead us to propose that the tumor virus RNA is originated when RNA transcripts of class 1 genes are processed by a mechanism we call “paraprocessing.” We postulate that RNA paraprocessing is normally used only at particular times during differentiation and is characterized by the cytoplasmic appearance of high-molecular-weight RNA chains containing terminal polyadenylic acid (200 residues). Paraprocessing of class 1 gene transcripts in committed or differentiated cells is considered to be aberrant in transcription that can lead to the generation of an RNA tumor virus genome. If the paraprocessed class 1 gene transcript codes for a reverse transcriptase, replication of the RNA becomes possible. Transfer of the replicating RNA to a new cell can result in genetic change such that the virus genome mutates, differing from the original progenitor genes. We propose that this genetic change causes class 1 viruses to become class 2. These ideas are applied to evidence concerning the biology of infection of RNA tumor viruses and concerning the involvement of RNA tumor viruses in human cancer. Genetic change can also occur during the origination of an RNA tumor virus genome by repeated reverse transcription and recombination or by genetic alteration of particularly changeable cell genes (“hot spots”).

    *EMPHASIS ADDED: Can you tell me why such 70S RNA has never been isolated directly from AIDS patients with a high viral load or HIV Ab positives? Shouldn’t matching a measurable “viral load” with complete dimeric RNA genomes be at least a minimum forensic standard for sending someone to prison, if the law is going to say some poor individual “knowingly transmitted” a cell-free agent capable of reproducing itself in the partner and destroying her immune cells? All cDNA proves, if it can even be associated with individuals not in the AIDS risk groups, is that bits of retroviral RNA can wind up discharged by sick cells or that 10 kb cDNA can be obtained from these bits after extensive processing in cell cultures.

  84. MacDonald Says:

    it was later discovered that each HIV isolate is slightly different from all others

    Fascinating! This prompts the question when was it discovered that all humans are slightly different from each other?

  85. drpsduke Says:

    MacDonald, I suspect humans first noticed differences between each other the first time they looked at 2 or 3 people. Likewise, people noticed that not all HIV-1 isolates were identical after they sequenced the second one.

    Nick, you realize, I assume, that in 1975 it was not yet clear that only the oncogene part of the RNA tumor viruses was derived from cellular genomes, and that most (nearly all) such oncoviruses require a helper virus, because the gain of the cellular oncogene also resulted in a loss of viral gene material needed for infection or replication. 70S RNA has been isolated from the sera of HIV-seropositive people thousands of times. It is often called HIV RNA or genomic RNA, rather than 70S RNA. All of the viral load tests, from PCR to branched-chain DNA methods were indeed based on comparing the results from the test reactions to results of other methods such as RNA levels and numbers of infectious units. It was the comparison of such numbers, that lead to the realization that most viral particles are not fully replication-competent. Sequencing of viral genomes has likewise confirmed that the error rate of the reverse transcriptase results in monviable mutations (such as a stop codon in the middle of the Gag, Pol or Env coding regions) in many genomes.

    Kiernan RE, McPhee DA, Doherty RR.
    Quantitation of infectious human immunodeficiency virus using a modified plaque forming assay.
    J Virol Methods. 1988 Dec;22(2-3):303-8.
    PMID: 2464609

    Tschochner M, Schwingel E, Thein C, Wittmann S, Paatz C, Walter H.
    Superiority of infectivity-based over particle-based methods for quantitation of drug resistant HIV-1 as inocula for cell cultures.
    J Virol Methods. 2007 Apr;141(1):87-96. Epub 2006 Dec 28.
    PMID: 17196267

    Bourinbaiar AS.
    The ratio of defective HIV-1 particles to replication-competent infectious virions.
    Acta Virol. 1994 Feb;38(1):59-61.
    PMID: 7520666

    Lee MH, Sano K, Morales FE, Imagawa DT.
    Comparable sensitivities for detection of human immunodeficiency virus by sensitive reverse transcriptase and antigen capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.
    J Clin Microbiol. 1988 Feb;26(2):371-4.
    PMID: 2449457

    Gupta P, Balachandran R, Grovit K, Webster D, Rinaldo C Jr.
    Detection of human immunodeficiency virus by reverse transcriptase assay, antigen capture assay, and radioimmunoassay.
    J Clin Microbiol. 1987 Jun;25(6):1122-5.
    PMID: 2439537

    Borzy MS, Connell RS, Kiessling AA.
    Detection of human immunodeficiency virus in cell-free seminal fluid.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1988;1(5):419-24.
    PMID: 2464685

    Marozsan AJ, Fraundorf E, Abraha A, Baird H, Moore D, Troyer R, Nankja I, Arts EJ.
    Relationships between infectious titer, capsid protein levels, and reverse transcriptase activities of diverse human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates.
    J Virol. 2004 Oct;78(20):11130-41.
    PMID: 15452233

  86. MacDonald Says:

    Drps, I guess what struck me was that, since Adam had already looked at Eve some 4000 years ago and found something different about her, why would scientists expect all HIV isolates to be identical in the first place – not just some but all, which is what they must have thought if they thought they could mix patient sera freely?

  87. drpsduke Says:

    MacD, it was not like some committee of scientists got together and decided that it was the best idea to mix several sera together. Mika Popovic was a pot-doc, working alone. He had a few leftover drops of a few different sera, and not enough of any one to infect a set of cell lines he was working with, so he pooled them, in order to be able to put the same innocula onto each cell line. It is pretty common when doing experiments, to reduce the number of variables. You want all things equal except for one variable at a time. If he wanted to find out which of 23 cell lines was best for producing HIV-1 virions, and he used a different innoculum on each, in the end he would not know whether the one that produced the most virions was due to a difference in the virus (even if they were assumed to be identical in genome sequence, the sera would have different numbers of infectious units), or a difference in the cell line.

    So it was not “they” mixing sera, but Mika. And there was a good reason. In hind sight, if Mika had known that one of the lines would be highly successful, and then be passed on to George Shaw and Beatrice Hahn for cloning etc. He probably would have done things differently.

    Although HIV is not the only highly variable virus, it is unusually variable in comparison to HTLV-1 and HTLV-2. At the time Popovic et al were working with these sera, it was assumed that this was just another lineage of the HTLVs, and would have even less diversity that HTLV-1, because it was clear that the new AIDS-causing virus had only been infecting north Americans and Europeans for a few years, whereas HTLV-1 has been infecting humans for tens of thousands of years. Diversity accumulates over time.

    At any rate, records were kept about which sera were pooled, and the patient identifications of each serum sample were known. So retrospective work could be done to trace the virus in the H9 cell line back to the patient.

  88. drpsduke Says:

    Oops, post-doc, a researcher who recently got his PhD. Not pot-doc…

  89. MacDonald Says:

    Hehe… ok I take your word for it, the confusion didn’t arise because the sera was being handled by a pot doc. I’m not really in a position to evaluate the quality or validity of lab work, although it’s pretty obvious by now that a few funny things were going on in the beginning. I just thought it strange that even a po(s)t-doc would assume all isolates of an RNA virus to be identical. I was probably just splitting hairs over a side issue.

    Anyway the point that ‘diversity accumulates over time’ seems to be valid only in the trivial sense that it takes time for HIV, or the influenza viruses to which it has been compared, to replicate. Thus, with time the diversity indeed accumulates, but that new functional strains are produced in the blink of an eye should hardly have come as a big surprise – unless one wants to award HIV a very unique status indeed.

  90. drpsduke Says:

    Actually, the new functional strains are not produced in the blink of an eye, or even over 30 or 40 years. All of the subtypes of the HIV-1 M group of viruses remain very nearly equally pathogenic even after 70 or more years in humans. Only very recently have slight differences in pathogenicity between the subtypes begun to be apparent:

    Baeten JM, Chohan B, Lavreys L, Chohan V, McClelland RS, Certain L, Mandaliya K, Jaoko W, Overbaugh J.
    HIV-1 subtype D infection is associated with faster disease progression than subtype A in spite of similar plasma HIV-1 loads.
    J Infect Dis. 2007 Apr 15;195(8):1177-80. Epub 2007 Mar 2.
    PMID: 17357054

    With influenza A viruses, all viruses sampled from any year, no matter where the samples were collected, are essentially identical. One strain goes around the world each year. HIV-1 and human influenza virus evolve at nearly equal rates, but their patterns of epidemic spread over time are worlds apart. One person can transmit flu to a few others in an hour, HIV transmissions are very much slower than that, many people never transmit the virus and only a very few transmit to more than two or 3 other people, except in cases of commercial sex workers, or needle-sharing IV drug abusers. Andre Parenzee is a rather typical example, he only transmitted the virus to one of the 3 people he had long-term relationships with (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenzee ).

    Anyway, all this goes way beyond whether or not the Perth Group has any clue about virology, or oxidative stress for that matter. If you read the full testimony and cross examinations, and not just the tid-bits that justice Sulan put in his ruling, it becomes all the more obvious why this defense tactic was worthless from day one.

  91. Truthseeker Says:

    All of the subtypes of the HIV-1 M group of viruses remain very nearly equally pathogenic even after 70 or more years in humans.

    With the discovery of the well known and much feared Virus only 22 years old, on what basis is this confident extrapolation made?

  92. MacDonald Says:

    Drps, I may be confused about the terminology here, but when I said new ‘functional strains’, I wasn’t referring to differences in pathogenicity, but simply viable variations of HIV, called ‘strains’ by for instance virologist Dr. Dwyer, who in his Parenzee testimony repeated the observation that here are countless strains of HIV, sometimes two different ones within the same cell.

    I said HIV and influenza had been compared – in the Parenzee testimony as well – it is your contention that they evolve at equal speed, although in the immediately preceeding sentence you also said that “with influenza A viruses, all viruses sampled from any year, no matter where the samples were collected, are essentially identical”.

    If what we’re talking right now, each after his own measure I grant but nevertheless, is not part of or very closely related to the field of virology, I confess I am deceived. I’d therefore imagine it is sort of relevant to the question of whether or not the Perth Group know what they are talking about in that regard.

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say “this tactic was worthless”. I agree with practically everybody here that the overall tactic was worthless, at least in the sense that it was extremely poorly executed, and that ‘somebody’ ought to have known better from the beginning.

    But how their lack of court room savvy has any bearing on the Perth group’s real expertise in matters of virology and oxidative stress escapes me.

  93. MacDonald Says:

    I might add to Truthseeker’s point that in a study that’s only about 22 years old and hardly can be said to evolve with the speed and success of the very simple creature that is its object, the fact that “only very recently have slight differences in pathogenicity between the subtypes begun to be apparent” to the HIV scientists does not make it a fact that these ‘slight differences’ were not there all along.

    The explanation for the appearance of the ‘slight differences’ is even simpler than HIV itself: Some 10 years into this mess, when visibly disappointed HIV scientists reluctantly had to admit that HIV wasn’t nearly as predictably lethal as they had thought (unless the patient can be forced to follow his full dose AZT therapy, in which case the end point is much easier to calculate), they needed new stories:

    1. There’s something wrong with the patient – the ‘genetic co-factor’ explanation for elite controllers

    2. There’s something wrong with the virus – the ‘less pathogenic strain’ explanation.

  94. drpsduke Says:

    Truthseeker, many lines of evidence point to an origin for the HIV-1 M group entering humans at least 70 years ago (although not being transported to the United states until the late 1970s):

    Keele BF, Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Bailes E, Takehisa J, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Chen Y, Wain LV, Liegeois F, Loul S, Ngole EM, Bienvenue Y, Delaporte E, Brookfield JF, Sharp PM, Shaw GM, Peeters M, Hahn BH.
    Chimpanzee reservoirs of pandemic and nonpandemic HIV-1.
    Science. 2006 Jul 28;313(5786):523-6. Epub 2006 May 25.
    PMID: 16728595

    Mokili J, Korber B.
    The spread of HIV in Africa.
    J Neurovirol. 2005;11 Suppl 1:66-75. Review.
    PMID: 15966105

    Korber B, Muldoon M, Theiler J, Gao F, Gupta R, Lapedes A, Hahn BH, Wolinsky S, Bhattacharya T.
    Timing the ancestor of the HIV-1 pandemic strains.
    Science. 2000 Jun 9;288(5472):1789-96.
    PMID: 10846155

    Gao F, Bailes E, Robertson DL, Chen Y, Rodenburg CM, Michael SF, Cummins LB, Arthur LO, Peeters M, Shaw GM, Sharp PM, Hahn BH.
    Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes.
    Nature. 1999 Feb 4;397(6718):436-41.
    PMID: 9989410

    Robbins KE, Lemey P, Pybus OG, Jaffe HW, Youngpairoj AS, Brown TM, Salemi M, Vandamme AM, Kalish ML.
    U.S. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 epidemic: date of origin, population history, and characterization of early strains.
    J Virol. 2003 Jun;77(11):6359-66.
    PMID: 12743293

    MacD, there is no contradiction in saying that HIV-1 M group viruses and influenza A viruses evolve at the same rate and yet have completely different diversity within a given population of humans at a given time. Diversity in the population is determined both by the rate of virus evolution and by the pattern of epidemic spread. HIV takes decades to get around the world and infect a significant percentage of the population in any region, flu can do the same thing in a couple weeks.
    For another example, humans and pine trees evolve at the same rate, but human population size and genetic diversity in the USA had changed much more dramatically in the past 300 years than has pine tree genetic diversity and population size.

    You are correct that we are talking about biology, and more specifically virology, and that the Perth group is demonstrably ignorant about both. Either that, or they know they are lying.

    When I said “this tactic was worthless” I was referring to the tactic of attempting to base an appeal on the testimony of people who know nothing about virology, yet who claim to be the world’s authority on whether or not HIV-1 has been isolated. The Perth group claims that if HIV-1 has not been isolated by their criteria, it has not been isolated. Yet no virus has ever been isolated by their criteria.

    Slight differences in pathogenicity of various strains of HIV-1 M group viruses does not mean that none are pathogenic at all. That would be like saying that just because a higher percentage of people who crash convertible cars die, than those who crash trucks, it means that automobile accidents are not deadly at all. Not everyone who wrecks a car dies, and not everyone who becomes infected with HIV gets AIDS, but the rate of death among people in car accidents and the rate of death among HIV-infected people who do not get adequate treatment is hundreds of fold higher than the rate of death among people who are not HIV infected or are not in a car accident.

  95. Nick Naylor Says:

    drpsduke, “HIV RNA” as expressed in viral load papers and measured with as few base-pairs as 200-300 in gag, ambiguously uses the “HIV” part as a modifier of “RNA”; it is not an equivalency statement to 70S RNA.

    And you love to talk about “helper viruses”. Don’t you see, the “env-lor-px-onco-accessory” part IS the “helper” to the “gag-pol” complex part.

    Dear readers, I’m simply proposing some legal/forensics questions and issues one might think of following the wonderfully detailed Sulan Opinion. It’s hard enough – the tasks at hand – a regarding of the situation, then getting to the appropriate destination and now it appears there’s another tecno-baffle-gabber and an info-dump to boot! Looks familar … I think costanza’s in the building … makes a suitably delicious distraction …

    Any CSI’s who happen to be interested … follow the RNA …

  96. Nick Naylor Says:

    I’ve noticed the bringing up of history, so let’s, as they say, set the record straight.

    Since drpsduke has brought up “the origin of HIV-1 isolate HTLV IIIB”, why not take a look at the horse’s mouth, the paper of that title published in Nature, Volume 363, June 3-1993, which forms the basis of the previously stated “accidental-same-sequence” from Gallo et Montagnier Labs. They had not isolated the same “AIDS virus”; LAV was originally contrasted with the different HTLV variants by other research groups. But later all the names were “re-ordered”. The HTLV Roman-numerating taxonomy was the system that made “III” distinct from “I” and “II” based on an alleged “cell-free transmission”, but also on nucleic-acid sequences. However, these 3 clones were kept in the same “family” based on partial nucleic acid sequence identities. When it was decided to name the “immunodeficiency syndrome” virus as an “immunodeficiency virus”, HTLV III was abandoned (and I and II forgotten as having been associated with AIDS), to establish the unique singularity of “HIV-1”.

    The Nature-93 paper traces the effects of 2 “accidents”, the first being a “contamination of a culture derived from patient BRU by one from patient LAI (that) was responsible for the provenance of HIV-1 Lai/LAV” in Montagnier’s culture. There was a second contamination incident after this culture was sent to Gallo’s laboratory.

    The authors are scientists from Roche laboratories “commissioned” by the “Office of Scientific Integrity at the National Institute of Health (to) analyze archival samples established at the Pasteur Institute and the Laboratory of Tumour Cell Biology [LTCB at the National Cancer Institute] between 1983 and 1985”. They looked at “37 coded archival samples associated with the isolation of HIV-1 Lai/LAV and HIV-1 Lai/IIIB.” The authors: SP Chang, BH Bowman et al state in the Abstract that their “goals were to determine which HIV-1 variants were present in the samples and the sequence diversity among HIV-1 isolates from the earliest stages of the AIDS epidemic”.

    They comment on the controversy that eventually involved the French and US governments. “The striking similarity between the first two … HIV-1 isolates Lai/LAV (formerly LAV, isolated at the Pasteur Institute [1,2]) and Lai/IIIB (formerly HTLV IIIB, reported to be isolated from a pooled culture at the … LTCB) provoked considerable controversy in light of the high level of variability found among subsequent isolates”.

    “We concluded that the (LTCB) pool and probably another LTCB culture …were contaminated between October 1983 and early 1984 by variants of HIV-1 Lai from the” BRU-LAV “culture (sent to LTCB in September 1983). Therefore the origin of HIV-1 Lai/IIIB isolate was patient LAI”.

    Whew! You can’t tell the players without a scorecard. The different “HIV-1” type strains were PCR-assayed using the 268 bp “V1/V2 env region”, which comprises 2 of the original 3 conserved amino acid residue-regions (“similar to other retroviruses – the transmembrane glycoproteins”) identified by Gallo et al, Nature, Jan-1985, page 282. Because V1/V2 contains 0-15 bp “hypervariable regions”, Bru clone can be distinguishedfrom LAV clone which can be distinguished from IIIB clone. The assays also enabled the tracing of these sequences from the “LAV” cell-culture of “Montagnier” to the parent “HT aneuploid” culture of the “continuous- isolation” May 1984 Science paper, referred to here as the “LTCB pooled culture”. The order of “strain-sequence bifurcation” is Lai => LAV + IIIB

  97. Nick Naylor Says:

    “Duke” is ignoring well-documented retroviral recombination or RNA template switching when reverse transcriptase processes one RNA strand and then, “suddenly”, another; in many instances, altering the ‘daughter’ genome significantly.

    Gee, I wonder if this phenomenon has anything to do with “helper viruses”?

  98. Nick Naylor Says:

    Could the dukester be confused? i only bring this up not to make it personal, but to re-emphasize that we’re trying to proceed as detectives uncovering the “mystery” of “mass production” of “virions”, except, alas as spelled out above, what kind of “virions” can one mass produce if the initial ratio of genomic RNA to synthetic template RNA is roughly 10^(-3) and the concentrate – actually pooled with RT assayed supernatants (not serum) from the AIDS patients covered in “next paper” above – is never documented (even though we’re talking about genomic isolation from PROCESSED cells) to contain 70S RNA.

  99. Nick Naylor Says:

    And finally Duke winds up with that old standby, phylogenetic reconstructions. Right, let’s study all these computer-generated “trees” based on assumptions that don’t track with nature. I certainly am not going to begrudge the gainful employment of bioinformatics’ technicians (not pot-docs but pot-geeks), who think the job’s a party and probably have know idea what they’re looking at.

    But when the argument comes down to: how can Perth Group possibly know what they’re talking about, look at what the computer says ….

  100. sculdermully Says:

    Nick, It looks like you’ve nailed Duke here, but could you say it in words that make sense?
    Which paper uses synthetic RNA template and pooled supernatants? How did they process the cells?
    Where did Duke talk about computer-generated trees? Was “pine trees” a code for something?
    I thought he was talking about trees, like in a wood forest.

  101. MacDonald Says:

    Drpsduke,

    I’m not sure where your pine trees are going; looks to me another Birnam Wood.
    In your analogy, human spread is the fastest and most versatile, so that must correspond to influenza, whereas the pine trees correspond to HIV. According to this, fast spread means greater diversity. The real picture is the opposite.

    Bottom line, all influenza A isolates are essentially identical within the same year – your words. No two HIV isolates are identical , anywhere, ever – your words. It’s the norm even for two clones from a single HIV isolate to show variation. So… is the mutability of HIV unique?

    You have now stated a couple of times that the Perth Group know nothing about virology. Would you like to substantiate that – perhaps with another of your analogies?

    Are you aware that you’ve said above that not all HIV infections lead to AIDS? Would you like to sign your full name?

  102. drpsduke Says:

    MacD, the analogy about pine trees and humans was only to say that rate of evolution alone does not determine diversity. Human diversity accumulated over tens of thousands of years, all over the world, and then in the past 600 years we moved around a lot more than we did in the hundreds of years preceding that. Likewise HIV diversity accrued in Africa for decades, and then spread out to the north (primarily subtype B to USA/Europe; primarily subtype E to Thailand) and the the south (South African infections are more than 90% subtype C). Neither rate of travel, nor rate of evolution nor a combination of both necessarily tells all there is to know about diversity. Many other factors, such as number of offspring per individual, average lifespan of each individual, and amount of “room” for population growth all contribute.

    Everyone has heard of long term survivors, long term non-progressors, “elite controllers” and other groups of people who have infection with HIV-1 M group viruses and do not get sick within 10 or 20 years of infection. Everyone also knows that some strains of HIV-1, such as those in the Sydney bloodbank cohort with defective Nef genes, are less pathogenic. And that HIV-2 is often non-pathogenic to humans.

    Mazzucchelli R, Corvasce S, Violin M, Riva C, Bianchi R, Deho L, Velleca R, Cibella J, Bada M, Moroni M, Galli M, Balotta C.
    Role of CCR5, CCR2 and SDF-1 gene polymorphisms in a population of HIV-1 infected individuals.
    J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2001 Jul-Sep;15(3):265-71.
    PMID: 11693435

    Hendel H, Henon N, Lebuanec H, Lachgar A, Poncelet H, Caillat-Zucman S, Winkler CA, Smith MW, Kenefic L, O’Brien S, Lu W, Andrieu JM, Zagury D, Schachter F, Rappaport J, Zagury JF.
    Related Articles, Links
    Abstract Distinctive effects of CCR5, CCR2, and SDF1 genetic polymorphisms in AIDS progression.
    J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998 Dec 1;19(4):381-6.
    PMID: 9833747

    Schindler M, Munch J, Kutsch O, Li H, Santiago ML, Bibollet-Ruche F, Muller-Trutwin MC, Novembre FJ, Peeters M, Courgnaud V, Bailes E, Roques P, Sodora DL, Silvestri G, Sharp PM, Hahn BH, Kirchhoff F.
    Nef-mediated suppression of T cell activation was lost in a lentiviral lineage that gave rise to HIV-1.
    Cell. 2006 Jun 16;125(6):1055-67.
    PMID: 16777597

    Xiang Z, Ariyoshi K, Wilkins A, Dias F, Whittle H, Breuer J.
    HIV type 2 pathogenicity is not related to subtype in rural Guinea Bissau.
    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1997 Apr 10;13(6):501-5.
    PMID: 9100992

    I don’t need an analogy to substantiate that the Perth group either does not know virology, or knows it and choses to tell lies about what they know. It is substantiated by the Parenzee trial very well, and also by their web site.

  103. MacDonald Says:

    Neither rate of travel, nor rate of evolution nor a combination of both necessarily tells all there is to know about diversity

    I understand that, which is to say I understand that evolution and diversity are not the same – although if I remember any of my girlhood Darwin correctly, diversity accumulates only if the variations are viable, ie. are insignificant or tend toward greater fitness, which again is a function of the interplay between environment, competition and the individual’s response.

    Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that the fact that all influenza A isolates are “essentially identical within the same year”, and no two HIV isolates are identical, period, necessarily says anything about the latter’s diversity, which was the initial point. Perhaps I was also mistaken in calling the spans of time we’re talking, granted your 70 years timeline, a blink of the eye by most clocks.

    But since you introduced the question of virus evolution, I’ll be mercenary about it and simply remark that it seems to me there are influenza vaccines but no HIV vaccines, and that rapidly developing drug resistance is a major problem. In other words, far be it from me to contest your claim that the evolutionary rate of HIV and Influenza A are equal, but still there seems to be ‘something’ about HIV.

    However, if you’re telling me there is nothing unique about HIV, I shall certainly keep it in mind.

  104. drpsduke Says:

    MacD, no two Influenza viruses are 100% identical, by “essentially identical” I only meant that they are greater than 99.8% identical, or have one difference per 500 bases or something like that. Any two HIV-1 isolates from the same HIV-infected individual are also likely to be between 99.0% and 99.99% identical.

    The vaccine for human influenza A virus is updated every 2 to 4 years. Both influenza and HIV evolve at a rate of roughly 0.2 to 0.5% per year depending on the gene (pol evolves slower than env in HIV, for example). So the flu vaccine is updated for every 2% change in the virus, roughly. So if we new exactly which HIV strain each person would be exposed to, and we could create a custom vaccine for the virus each person would be exposed to, we could protect people from HIV as well as we protect them from flu (the flu vaccine is not 100% successful, but it is probably better than 70% successful). But we don’t know exactly which HIV strains a person will be exposed to, and we can’t make a custom vaccine for each of the 6 billion people on earth, nor one for each of the few million people at greatest risk of exposure next year.

    This does not mean that it is impossible to make a vaccine against HIV-1 M group viruses that will work, or at least reduce infections by 60% to 80% over current unvaccinated levels. It only means that the problem is more difficult than creating a vaccine against influenza A viruses.

    Until a safe, effective and affordable vaccine is available to the world, prevention of infections though accurate information about HIV-1 and HIV-2 is critical. HIV is not like the flu, it does not spread randomly through the air. It is rather simple to practice safer sex, never share needles for injections of either legal or illegal drugs, and nearly eliminate new infections. The same practices will also greatly reduce transmissions of HCV, and several other viruses and bacteria, whereas a vaccine against HIV-1 would not.

    There are many things that are unique about HIV, but the mutation rate or evolution rate is not one of them. Also, the methods used to create infectious molecular clones of HIV, or the methods used to classify isolates and strains of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are not unique. Gradient centrifugation as the Perth group gets excited about, is useful in partially purifying many viruses including HIV, but serology and molecular cloning are also critical.

  105. Truthseeker Says:

    Truthseeker, many lines of evidence point to an origin for the HIV-1 M group entering humans at least 70 years ago (although not being transported to the United states until the late 1970s

    You stated that the well publicised Virus remained pathogenic after 70 years or longer, but what evidence do you have that it is or has ever been pathogenic? There is only supposition, which is no doubt much the same as the basis of the papers you cite, we are completely confident, knowing Bob Gallo’s source for his favorite fantasies. There is no proof or even good evidence that HIV will give anyone more than the equivalent of a brief cold, if that, before being corralled by antibodies. Apparently you have overlooked this point, which is precisely the difficulty that has caused the wrangling over the Gallo hypothesis that “HIV” is the cause of “HIV/AIDS” for the last twenty years, the ostracism of the paradigm’s critics, the media censorship of the extra-sensitive topic by Dr Anthony Fauci, etc. etc.

    Perhaps as an Sydney opthamologist (if that is the case) you are unaware of all this, but there is plenty about it on the Web now, starting with this blog’s list of sources down the right hand margin of the front page, recently expanded, but preferably the ones marked Accurate/Helpful, not the ones marked Misleading, of which the prime example is AIDSTruth, which you have apparently been relying on a little too much.

    Certainly anyone who talks such silly nonsense about a vaccine for the self vaccinating Virus being feasible or even necessary is in dire need of updating on the science of HIV in vivo since 1984, since it was soon established that there are more than sufficient antibodies to defeat HIV available in any healthy human within a week or two of infection.

    And anyone who posts here the usual pap about “safe sex” is clearly in need of reviewing some of our posts mentioning Nancy Padian before proceeding further.

  106. MacDonald Says:

    Drpsduke, as far as I can see you’ve just confirmed that there are difficulties with the many strains of HIV in existence at any point in time which are not found to a comparable degree with Influenza, so I’ll move on.

    It is rather simple to practice safer sex, never share needles for injections of either legal or illegal drugs

    To such as we are, disembodied intellects in cyberspace, safe sex, monogamy and all that looks a relatively simple proposition. But, alas Drps, that old fallen Adversary has created a different world out there filled with subterranian caves and tunnels connecting in a most wonderful fashion things seen and unseen: dark riverbeds through which courses life rich and alien to the detached Cartesian cogito. And yet, would the Cartesian Ego ‘be’ without those caves and rivers and deep, dark subversive places which it has all but disowned?

    the methods used to create infectious molecular clones of HIV, or the methods used to classify isolates and strains of HIV-1 and HIV-2 are not unique.

    I don’t think the Perth Group claim that the methods used for HIV are unique. However, Dr. Dwyer in his testimony seemed to confirm DeHarven’s and others’ observation that these methods were developed alongside HIV research very much as an answer to the needs of that research. it is pretty obvious that these methods are now in universal use. The question is, was something lost, were certain standards lowered, in the process of establishing the fair new biotech world?

    there are tried and true methods of virus isolation and those methods were developed from the original work done in 1983 by Montagnier’s group, and then Gallo’s group and all the others, so that now – and all that follows a process that we do for virus isolation of any description for any virus, and the way that that is all done, I think is perfectly appropriate and correct in identifying HIV. (Dominic Dwyer, Parenzee prosecution expert witness)

    With regard to classification, Ill just quote this little snippet:

    There are arbitrarily many HIV isolates that would constitute new ‘types’ by the criteria applied to papillomaviruses (>10% dissimilarity) [J Clin Virol 2000 Oct;19 (1-2):43-56]

    I believe there are problems with classifying HIV as a quasi species as well, but I’m pretty certain there is somebody else who has a lot more to say about this than I could so I defer.

  107. Nick Naylor Says:

    Sculder,

    I appreciate your comment and questions and ask, for now, that you review this entire thread. It should make sense that if I try to address these items in too lay a language, it can increase the difficulties on this complex subject. BTW, speaking of lay analogies and the matter at hand; more on train engines, fuel combustion and that destroyed bridge as an inadequate explanation of drugs and “viral load” – when we return to analyzing the implications of Judge Sulan’s Opinion, that point towards which, there is a full scale tugging going on of a certain duke …

    Example: even the term “mutation” is all too ambiguous when trying to “see” the genomic alterations and assess the important processivity distinctions between reproducing RNA template-RNA replicase “viral” interactions and RNA template-reverse transcriptase-DNA template-RNA polymerase II “transposon” interactions.

    However, we intend to answer your questions in more detail along with an evaluation of points taken and points evaded.

  108. Nick Naylor Says:

    Duke says, “I don’t need an analogy to substantiate that the Perth group either does not know virology, or knows it and choses to tell lies about what they know. It is substantiated by the Parenzee trial very well, and also by their web site.”

    Duke, do you know what we’re talking about here, the implications of Judge Sulan’s Ruling on the validity of a field within science? The Perth Group’s exclusion was part of a gatekeeping function: the Court can exclude testimony based on narrow criteria of what constitutes an expert witness. However, a gatekeeping function does not justify the over-reaching that occurred here: where the common sense standard of reasonable doubt would suffice as determining the probative value of the evidence offered to the court by Perth Group. That testimony itself need only be capable of being applied “reliably” to the facts of the case. The science behind that testimony need only be the “product of reliable principles and methods”.

    So your chap shot, never intended and undeliverable in any case as “expert testimony” to the relevant triers of fact, goes down as another nail in the coffin of justice that was this heinous prosecution.

  109. MacDonald Says:

    It is worth repeating that the judge in his gatekeeper function both shut locked and bolted the door.

    Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions. In my view, no weight could be given to her evidence. That is a relevant factor in considering whether permission to appeal should be granted.

    In other words,

    1. Ms. Papadopulos Eleopulos cannot be accepted as an expert witness. [shut]

    2. Even is she were an expert I would disregard her testimony. [locked]

    3. I disregard her testimony on the grounds that the majority does not share her views, and so would/should a jury. [bolted]

    The judge would reach this last conclusion, not by consulting the literature given to him by the Perth Group, but simply by asking the authors of the cited literature their opinion.

    By these indisputably democratic criteria, how would it be possible for anybody, Duesberg or anybody else, to win against ‘prevailing opinion’? The whole wasteful trial boiled down to an unnecessary, cruelly prolonged show of hands – 8 against 2

  110. Truthseeker Says:

    (We decided to make a post out of this comment but we post it here anyway in its raw state to keep the thread intact. – Ed.)

    By these indisputably democratic criteria, how would it be possible for anybody, Duesberg or anybody else, to win against ‘prevailing opinion’? The whole wasteful trial boiled down to an unnecessary, cruelly prolonged show of hands – 8 against 2

    Very well put, MacDonald, a nice analogy indeed, except for this, for it was not even a democratic vote, but one where received opinion was counted, and dissident opinion was not, so the perceived vote was in fact 8-0.

    But perhaps this was inevitable and even justified. How else is the judge expected to weigh a difference in scientific opinion where the wrangling has gone on for twenty years without an agreed upon resolution? He has to choose sides on the basis of credentials and the Perth pair have lousy credentials in the crucial matter that they stood upon, which was the claim that HIV was not proven to exist and that its indications could merely be those of an ERV, even though the darn retrovirus not only replicates in culture but has been sequenced up the gazoo by lab mice all over the world. Neither of them have made this claim in a peer reviewed journal. So naturally the judge put them down as amateur crackpots, and threw out the baby with the bathwater, dismissing them as credible witnesses despite the valuable contributions they have published in other respects such as testing, oxidative stress and so forth.

    As we have intimated in our posts, the Perth pair are a menace to the credibility of the critics of the HIV∫AIDS paradigm not only in their out of date critique of Montagnier’s inadequate isolation of HIV, which is fair enough, but was obsolete even at the time that Gallo took over, and certainly is now, but also with their remarkable attitude that they alone should be allowed to testify on the validity of HIV∫AIDS science to the Adelaide court, which they forced the family of Parenzee to agree to. Thus they have to take full responsiblility for the Adelaide debacle, where all the exposure of Gallo’s self justification as trash talk and scientifically self defeating went down the drain because the Perth pair was exposed as peddling anachronistic and uninformed opinion on a fundamental issue.

    What could have been an easy triumph for the HIV doubters was turned into a circus where the judge was misled by their amateurish global skepticism into rejecting without proper consideration the valid elements in their testimony and the opinion of kary Mullis. Instead of proving with ease that there are a myriad inconsistencies and reasons for reasonable doubt in the HIV∫AIDS paradigm, and thus empowering Paranzee’s appeal, the apparently wilful Eleni alienated the judge by providing him with all the signs of an untrustworthy witness that he looks for by nature of his long court experience in assessing the credibility of testimony and of the people who give it.

    What is unfortunate is that Eleni’s lack of moderation in pursuing her global skepticism is matched by some of the finest minds among supporters of the paradigm critique 🙂 Unfortunately, the encouragement all HIV∫AIDS skeptics receive year after year as the fault lines and fissures in the paradigm grow ever wider seems to be some kind of seductive drug which leads them to overbalane into total universal global skepticism where they start to earn the label “denialists” by denying everything including the kitchen sink, which in this case is the very existence of a virus currently identified as HIV.

    The result is that they discredit their own case in other respects, just as the Perth pair did in Adelaide.

    They say that no good deed goes unpunished, and certainly Duesberg has suffered enough for his public spirited stand against the sense and validity of the HIV∫AIDS claim. The fact that he has to suffer having these opinions attached to his good science, like a bunch of tin cans attached to the rear bumper of a Bentley, is beyond the call of duty. NAR stands with the realists in saying that the less heard from the Perth Group the better from now on, at least until they update their opinion on this fundamental point.

    We are as anxious as Duesberg evidently is to avoid the taint of crackpot skepticism visited upon all by Perth.

  111. MacDonald Says:

    I’m gonna try only one last time: there are thousands of crackpots out there who’ll stake their lives on a bet that HIV arrived on the Murchison meteor. Why are they not a danger to sane rethinkers, Mr. Truthseeker? Why is it that only Perth remains the target in post after post?

    When you’ve find the answer to that, you’ve found the answer to the question why AIDS Inc. lined up their A TEAM!!!!!!! against a pair whom we’ve just learned from Drpsduke are ignoramuses and liars.

    You’ll also have the answer to the question why the pods have found out they can do much more damage by just staying away from NAR and letting you rant on.

    For those potentially genuine rethinkers out there, I mentioned Descartes a few comments up. When Descartes said “I doubt ‘everything'”, well he didn’t really doubt ‘everything’; he proposed a method of fundamental inquiry. Get get it?!! A METHOD!!! A method which is the cornerstone of modern science and has produced results beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Is Dan the only one who can comprehend this?

  112. Truthseeker Says:

    You may have to define your terms again MacDonald for us to appreciate that there is even a morsel of sense in what you say. Pray do.

    You a) believe there is no HIV virus as a provable separate viable retroviral entity and/or b) believe that it has been mislabeled and mischaracterized? and/or c) that Duesberg doesn’t know what he is talking about in this regard?

    We will study our response with interest. Perhaps we should add
    and/or d) there are fairies in the bottom of the garden?
    No wait. You are accusing us of believing in a fairy at the bottom of the test tube.

    MacD, why don’t you refer to the post again to see why the Perth pair deserve removing from the game – they were the ones who barred testimony at the trial from others more credible than themselves. It is now now public knowledge that they insisted that this be so and won the acquiescence of the Parenzee family to this demand. This hubris was repaid by the result which by extension threatens the lives of many people around the world.

  113. Nick Naylor Says:

    TS, you are making some fair and well-reasoned points on the “debacle”. The large problem of the Perth testimony not reflecting current retrovirology is real. But the lacunae here are shared by almost all, given the vast thousands of papers on the subject that perhaps only John Coffin and Thierry Heidmann have a grasp of. What “harmless passenger virus” vs “nonexistence” leave out is a consensus which I’ll put in the most general terms: retroviral transcriptions in stressed cells have something to do with immune system adaptations that may be protective in some circumstances, and dysfunctional in others. Additionally, these stresses cause genomic alterations in certain blood cells that move toward an autonomous state out of harmony with the rest of the body, thus increasing the likelihood of transcription of genes downstream from any retroviral LTR that become “activated” by these processes. The distinction endogenous vs exogenous is meaningless functionally since current “HIV” and “HERV” research both demonstrate what is conventionally understood as promoter and enhancer regulated transcription via DNA dependent RNA polymerase.

    As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, again, a huge quantity that can overwhelm this little monkey brain. Is the above a fair summary of what most researchers in this field really and truly believe. I don’t know. But I will say it represents what a careful scientist with an unbiased perspective can reasonably conclude trying to make the broadest possible survey of this most vexing literature. What I’ve been attempting to get across (in a most maladroit manner, admittedly) is that the ontological question, “the very existence of a virus currently identified as HIV”, is imbedded in the question of “proximate causality” as understood by lawyers. As one legal scholar puts it, “application of the principle of causality remains the exclusive province of the trier of fact because the law employs the layman’s concept of causality for the resolution of causal issues.” In this case, the “trier of fact”, the jury, was prevented from applying their “lay” judgement to the facts in dispute by the good judge’s over-reaching into the realm of deciding on the validity of the science. It is “causation-in-fact”, the “existence” or not of an active reproducing virus within the body of Chad Parenzee, that should be the basis of his defense. Simply offering an opinion, even by a court qualified expert, that “HIV” is a harmless passenger would not provide sufficient detail to counter the weight of expert medical and scientific opinion on the prosecution’s side; it would be insufficient “grounding” for those deliberations in the jury room. You have already conceded that Perth’s “opinion evidence” on the non-specificity of the antibody tests would be necessary expert testimony to support a credible defense. What the TEAM were guilty of, as the lawyer puts it, was putting forward an “affirmative defense of can’t cause”, which is “nearly impossible from a scientific viewpoint because a null hypothesis can be disproved, but it cannot be proved. Furthermore such a defense is usually strategically unwise because it may be perceived as an attempt to prove too much.” Again, a STRATEGIC error that has nothing to do with the Perth analysis which HAS BEEN published in peer-reviewed journals.

    As far as your last post, technical matters ARE being addressed and I will continue in this vein shortly. Duesberg knows exactly what he’s talking about on matters techne, it is the ontos where the challenge lays.

  114. Bwian Says:

    Oh Truthseeker has added a tail to his last post, stating plainly for the record why it is a rethinker duty to target the Perth Group again and again with everything one has or has not in one’s grasp. As it is now common knowledge, not much more need be said about it other than. . .

    YES! every jihad must start with such a purging of aberrant elements within one’s own ranks in the name of the cause, and end with undying belief that every adverse outcome would have been different if only the kismet chosen suicide squad had been purer of heart.

  115. Bwian Says:

    Nick, even granted the possibility that endos and exos may be functionally similar in these respects does not eradicate the relevant distinction between them in terms of sexual transmissibility.

    MacDonald is right about one thing and one thing only, since he clearly has even less of a clue about virology than Nick and the Perth Group, it would have made no difference if it had been Duesberg or Smith and Jones down there in Adelaide. Crackpot opinion is till crackpot opinion and would still have been dismissed

  116. Dan Says:

    The large problem of the Perth testimony not reflecting current retrovirology is real.

    You’ve hit the nail on the head, Nick, and done so in very few words.

    Current “retrovirology” gives the world the deadly debacle that is AIDS. It seems that current “retrovirology” needs to be shaken at its foundation. For many of us rethinkers, the Perth Group is a necessary part of that process.

    Let’s see if this post makes it past the censors…

  117. MacDonald Says:

    Nick,

    I’ m not sure what you mean by the ‘Perth testimony’. I have only seen Valendar Turner’s affidavit online… There’s a limit, don’t you think, to how sophisticated an argument one can make to a science ignorant judge via a science ignorant defence lawyer and convince him that a science ignorant jury would be influenced by it?

    Speaking of science ignorance, my dear Bwian I may not be as well versed in virology as others, but I can’t be nearly as wrong a you say since I basically agree with you. Maybe my well developed intuition makes up for lack of scientific sense.

  118. Dan Says:

    TS, from earlier in the thread…

    This is a science blog, not a political one

    Noted.

    Unfortunately, the next two statements which come from the same post sound quite political, or at the very least, not so much about the science.

    But it doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong about their incredible claim. The simple fact is that they are a menace to the reputation of others who claim that the paradigm is wrong, as the Adelaide case showed

    This is not amateur hour, this is war, as John Moore has stated. To oppose an aircraft carrier you need a few Exocet missiles, not a Vietnam era battleship

    Now TS is agreeing with Moore that this is war. If it is war, then united we stand, divided we fall, correct?

    The Perth Group gambled and lost. I, for one, didn’t think for a minute that this case would be any challenge to the paradigm…Perth Group or not. Just my opinion. Time to move on.

  119. Truthseeker Says:

    Now TS is agreeing with Moore that this is war. If it is war, then united we stand, divided we fall, correct?

    Absolutely not, Dan. That is Moore’s politics, which he forces on others who disagree with him, but which only reflects the concious or unconscious knowledge of the weakness of his paradigm, which no half way intelligent person would support in its basics, whatever recondite issues are disputed by the distinguished sophisticates who contribute to this blog.

    We have not the slightest interest in bending our opinion to suit the politics of others, since we basically are revolted by science twisted by emotion and bias of any kind. Unless they offer us ready money of course, when we are like anybody else, willing to assert the moon is made of cheese if the price is right.

    To us the whole point of being a very rich country is that we can afford to deal with the truth, but apparently this is a very naive approach. We haven’t adapted to the modern world, where everything is now commercialized, even DNA.

    Anyone here whose scientific analysis is bent around their politics kindly leave unless they have a large sum of money to deposit in our bank account, in which case they may stay and we will never contradict them, we promise.

    As far as the Adelaide case being lost by the Perth pair is concerned, yes, it was, and a pity that the willful Eleni arranged that outcome by threatening to call a press conference and denounce any other dissident who was called as a witness, if that rather unlikely internet rumor (from Landis, apparently) is true. true or not, telling any judge that you don’t believe the virus really exists is just asking to be rated a crackpot, which indeed is the case since otherwise you would know that and be more cautious.

    The Perth pair just discredit the real scientists and their real objections to HIV∫AIDS ideology which has never had anything scientific to recommend it. Want to ensure a case is lost? Call the Perthbusters!

    That’s politics. But it’s separate from science, and has bearing only in who is listened to and who is not.

  120. Truthseeker Says:

    By the way, anyone who has a favorite dynamite page to refer to on the Web on either side that we haven’t listed in the beanstalk Blogroll in the right margin we have recently built up, please say so here or in email at al@scienceguardian.com, and we will add it immediately.

    Also anyone familiar with programming WordPress please contact if you may be able to help with adjustments..

  121. Nick Naylor Says:

    Bwian, it’s true that juries cannot “comprehend” highly specialized science in terms of its practice. But the legal standard requires equal, undrestandable presentations under the guidance of expert counsel by each side which satisfies a common-sense understanding of justice. The judge is only supposed to be a screen to insure that “opinion evidence” by qualified experts is “reliable”, arrived at by rational methods.

    Apparently, we still have to beat this point to death given our gracious host’s choice to dig in his heels and continue to attack the Perth’s PRACTICE of science, which has nothing to do with losing this case. But the question I’m trying to raise is how VALID was the testimony, say Gallo’s on “purification”: and yes, it is the job of opposing counsel to somehow expose it’s invalidity. This can and has been done by expert trial lawyers, even in technically complex areas.

    As far as Eleni’s testimony, I’m relying on the parts excerpted by Judge Sulan.

    More boring tecno-legal details will follow.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1314 access attempts in the last 7 days.