Reframing HIV and AIDS
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1101 (Published 06 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1101All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Re: An apparently missing control experiment on HIV / AIDS
In his rapid response, “An apparently missing control experiment on
HIV / AIDS”, 14 March 2004, with respect to Montagnier’s 1983 paper,
Etienne de Harven wrote: “…the paper was illustrated with an excellent
electron microcopy (EM) picture showing unquestionably typical retrovirus
particles budding from the surface of an infected lymphocyte.”
The presence of buds on cell surfaces does not prove that the buds
represent retrovirus particles. These buds may be nothing else but
cellular protrusions resulting from localised contraction of the actin-
myosin system induced by the oxidizing agents to which the cell cultures
are subjected. (1) That is, although buds are characteristic of
retroviral particles, they are not specific.
According to Montagnier et al “That this new isolate was a retrovirus
was further indicated by its density in a sucrose gradient, which was
1.16…” (2) However, we know now in the material which banded at
1.16gm/ml, the “purified virus”, Montagnier and his colleagues could not
find any particles with the “morphology typical of retroviruses”. (3)
This means that even if the cell-free particles originated from buds on
the cell surface neither the buds nor the cell free particles could have
had anything to do with either an endogenous or exogenous retrovirus.
Etienne wrote: “It appears that a most crucial, control experiment
has been omitted, in 1983, when the team at the Pasteur Institute in Paris
published their historical paper on the alleged “isolation” of HIV (LAV) …
Can any BMJ reader help to identify a laboratory where one could perform
the following, short, non-expensive, control experiment that is obviously
missing?
The experiment will be as simple as this: 1) Isolate lymphocytes from
human umbilical cord blood, 2) Place these lymphocytes in cell cultures,
exposing the cells to exactly the same growth factors (PHA and TCGF) as
those used in the 1983 experiments, in absence of any other cellular
elements; 3) Prepare these lymphocytes sequentially, for transmission
electron microcopy; 4) Search, by EM, for budding retroviral particles on
the surface of these cultured lymphocytes. I am personally convinced that
if positive results are obtained (i.e. budding retrovirus on stimulated
cord blood lymphocytes in the total absence of any AIDS patient material),
a profound reappraisal of the 1983 Pasteur paper will appear imperatively
necessary. I would be happy to contribute as an advisor and as an electron
microscopist, anytime, anywhere.”
Such an experiment has already been carried out. Budding retrovirus
-like particles have been reported in “non-HIV infected” cord blood
lymphocytes as well as many other cells used for “HIV isolation”.(4)
References
1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. (1996).
The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 4:1s-24s.
www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplypd.htm
2. Barre-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Nugeyre MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J,
Dauguet C, Axler-Blin C, Vezinet-Brun F, Rouzioun C, Rozenbaum W,
Montagnier L (1983) Isolation of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a
patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science
220:868-871.
3. Tahi D. (1998). Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? Text of video
interview with Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th
1997. Continuum 5:30-34.
4. Dourmashkin, R.R., O'Toole, C.M., Bucher, D. and Oxford, J.S. 1991.The
presence of budding virus-like particles in human lymphoid cells used for
HIV cultivation. p.122. In:Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference
on AIDS,Florence.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have chosen not to refute "facts" as put forward by Dr Rasnick,
because I have come to the conclusion that debating him is like wading in
mud: tiring, unsatisfactory, and eventually a pretty dirty business.
The single uncontestable fact is that he clings to the supposed
respectability conferred by his FORMER membership of a now-defunct South
African Presidential advisory panel, of which none of the orthodox members
take any pride in their FORMER association. I know several of these
personally, and they are not under the impression that its activities are
ongoing. Why Dr Rasnick is, is not clear. Perhaps his personal
correspondence with Mr Mbeki bears him out?
As for other "facts" concerning HIV that Dr Rasnick keeps
promulgating: well, sir, you are an unregenerate denialist, and history
will prove it so. If there is any justice, and an "HIV crimes" comission
is ever set up, your name will be high on the list - as malign
propagandist in chief. Life is too short to have truck with fools, so I
will not enter into any further correspondence on this issue.
Competing interests:
Working on HIV vaccines
Competing interests: No competing interests
An apparently missing control experiment on HIV/AIDS
It appears that a most crucial, control experiment has
been omitted, in 1983, when the team at the Pasteur
Institute in Paris published their historical paper on the
alleged “isolation” of HIV (LAV) (1).
The problem is as follows:
Isolation of HIV (LAV) has been claimed on the basis of
observations made from complex, mixed cell cultures
of different origins, hyperstimulated by PHA and by
TCGF. The cultures were supplemented with human
lymphocytes isolated from umbilical cord blood, and
the paper was illustrated with an excellent electron
microcopy (EM) picture showing unquestionably typical
retrovirus particles budding from the surface of an
infected lymphocyte. This illustrated infected cell was
clearly identified by the authors of the paper as a cord
blood lymphocyte. However, the authors interpreted this
picture as evidence for the infection of these
lymphocytes by an exogenous retrovirus, presumably
originated from the lymph node of a pre-AIDS patient.
More importantly, this interpretation has been one of the
key elements leading the authors to claim success in
having “isolated” HIV (LAV).
However, it was well known, for almost 30 years, that
the human is the most striking reservoir of endogenous
human retroviruses (HERVs). EM evidence for the
presence of retoviruses in human placenta was clearly
demonstrated by Sandra Panem in 1978 (2), i.e. 5
years before the Pasteur group published their
historical paper (1). The human placenta being very rich
in endogenous retroviruses, we have all reasons to
believe that lymphocytes from the cord blood are
similarly carrying this defective endogenous retrovirus.
Moreover, it is well established that human
endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) can be forced,
under the influence of various growth factors, to
express themselves as complete viral particles,
Budding on cell surfaces (3).
How can we exclude, therefore, that the EM picture
published by the Pasteur group in 1983 (1) simply
demonstrates the activation of endogenous
retroviruses of cord blood lymphocytes, and do not in
any way demonstrates an exogenous infection of these
lymphocytes by AIDS patient material?
Can any BMJ reader help to identify a laboratory where
one could perform the following, short, non-expensive,
control experiment that is obviously missing?
The experiment will be as simple as this:
1) Isolate lymphocytes from human umbilical cord
blood,
2) Place these lymphocytes in cell cultures, exposing
the cells to exactly the same growth factors (PHA and
TCGF) as those used in the 1983 experiments, in
absence of any other cellular elements;
3) Prepare these lymphocytes sequentially, for
transmission electron microcopy;
4) Search, by EM, for budding retroviral particles on the
surface of these cultured lymphocytes.
I am personally convinced that if positive results are
obtained (i.e. budding retrovirus on stimulated cord
blood lymphocytes in the total absence of any AIDS
patient material), a profound reappraisal of the 1983
Pasteur paper will appear imperatively necessary.
I would be happy to contribute as an advisor and as an
electron microscopist, anytime, anywhere.
Conflict of interest: None
Etienne de Harven, MD
Emerit Prof (Pathology) University of Toronto,
06530 Saint Cézaire sur Siagne, France
E-mail: <pitou.deharven@wanadoo.fr>
References
1)Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Nugeyre
MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J, Dauguet C, Axler-Blin C,
Vézinet-Brun F, Rouzioux C, Rozenbaum W, Montagnier
L. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient
at risk for acqueired immune deficiency syndromed
(AIDS). Science 220, 20 May 1983, pp 868-871.
2) Panem S. C type virus expression in the placenta.
Curr Top Pathol 1979; 66:175-189.
3) Löwer R. et al. The virus in all of us: characteristics
and biological significance of endogenous retrovirus
sequences<<<; proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93 :
5177-518
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir
The authors obviously take the facts as given by WHO and UNAIDS
verbatim, is that healthy?
The AIDS 'debate', when encouraged, is fascinating. In addition to
attempting to keep up with the 'debate' I have recently been informed by
two excellent articles (bibliography at end) and share points I have
deduced with BMJ readers. I welcome correction and answers where
appropriate but feel certain there are serious problems with AIDS and HIV
statistics as created by WHO and UNAIDS that makes them completely
unreliable:-
1. TB can trigger a false positive with the HIV test so how does one
differentiate between a person with TB who is not HIV+ and one who
actually has HIV; and does this not affect international AIDS statistics
as they are dependent on HIV test results?
2. Pregnancy can trigger false positives with HIV tests so how does
one differentiate between a pregnant woman with HIV and one without; and
does this not affect international AIDS statistics that are almost
completely dependent on HIV tests of blood of pregnant women?
3. According to their AIDS statistics, WHO and UNAIDS state that
Africa is in the grip of a pandemic of AIDS with over 20,000,000 Africans
affected by the plague. The two bodies define AIDS in Africa according to
the Bangui Definition - that if one has 2 major and one minor symptom (eg
weight loss, chronic diarrhoea with say coughing, then one has AIDS.
Certain countries, eg Tanzania,have gone even further and accept one major
and one minor symptom (eg. fever with weight loss) as denoting AIDS - and
do not use HIV testing to facilitate their statistics. If an African is
suffering from malaria, or TB, or dysentery, or SLIM - which are endemic
in Africa and cause the same symptoms that WHO and UNAIDS have decided
denote AIDS, how does one differentiate between AIDS and these disorders?
4. In Africa, many poor counries have little medicine to treat
endemic diseases like TB, malaria, dysentery, SLIM and if AIDS is
diagnosed they do not 'waste' their precious stocks of medicines on the
'AIDS' patient suspected to be 'concurrently suffering from' TB or
dysentery or malaria or SLIM. How then does one resist the potentially
resistible mortality for those Africans who are wrongly diagnosed with
AIDS?
5. Less than 50% of Africans have safe drinking water. More than 60%
have no sanitation, Most villages have no sewage systems so animal and
human faeces abound in drinking water causing the endemic chronic
parasitic and bacterial infections that cause diseases that are defined by
symptoms also defined by Bangui as AIDS. Is not the Bangui definition
irresponsible in Africa? Would not the bangui definition be more
responsible if used after Africans had their water and sanitation improved
to acceptable standards?
6. In 1999 the UNAIDS Commission recommended African Finance
Ministers to redirect billions of dollars from their health infrastructure
and rural development into AIDS - condoms, safe sex and deadly drugs - is
that not irresponsible when the eradication of AIDS and, more importantly
the endemic diseases caused by lack of sound health infrastructure,
sanitation, rural development and drugs for endemic diseases, are more
urgently needed by Africans?
7. It is said that the WHO and UNAIDS statitsics for AIDS in South
Africa relied heavily on HIV testing of blood samples finding 4,000 HIV+
results for pregmant women; it then extrapolated to reach a figure of
about 5,000,000 South Africans suffering from AIDS (using the Epimodel in
Geneva) including the young, old, men, women and children. The HIV test
manufacturers state that pregnancy and those endemic diseases that ravage
the females' homeland all create positive HIV test results. Are the
WHO/UNAIDS statistics accurate or irresponsibly inaccurate?
8. Figures from WHO/UNAIDS stated there were 2.2 million cumulative
AIDS deaths in Uganda, yet the Ugandan Ministry of Health had a total
record of only 56,000 deaths.
9. To the end of 2001, official government bodies' figures for
cumulative AIDS deaths in the developed world could only account for about
7% of the total 28 million deaths WHO and UNAIDS declared had occurred
through AIDS. Apparently Russia could account for only 5% of WHO/UNAIDS
alleged figures, India only 2%, and China only 1%. What is going on at WHO
and UNAIDS, who or what is responsible for such gross inaccuracies?
10. If WHO and UNAIDS figures are so inaccurate, and create
unnecessary fear amongst poor communities that should have other
priorities for spending the litte assets they hold, would that not play
into the hands of unscrupulous drugs companies that wish to extend HIV
testing into these poor countries and acquire those assets through the
purchase of very toxic drugs that would be given to poverty stricken
people, especially pregnant women and their children, who would know no
better - drugs such as Nevirapine, banned in the USA but already being
delivered to Africa by drugs companies and that could be foisterd on
unsuspecting mothers who have false positive HIV tests or 'flawed' Bangui
diagnoses?
11. The media continues to declare that WHO and UNAIDS statistics
suggest that Africa is dying of AIDS, that countries are depopulating
because of the pandemic, yet many such countries are actually shown as
increasing in population. Botswana was said in 1993 to have an estimated
population of 1.4 million, and today under 1 million and reducing, yet
Botswanas own reports say its population is growing at 2.7% p.a.
12. The Epimodel for Africa estimated 9.6 million cumulative AIDS
deaths by 1997 rising to 17 millions by 2000. It estimated 250,000 AIDS
deaths in South Africa for 1999. To validate this in an African setting an
MRC sponsored team accessed South Africa's death reports and reported in
2001 there had been 339,000 adult deaths in 1998, 375,000 deaths in 1999,
and 410,000 deaths in 2000. The MRC conclusion supported the model of a
rapidly increasing mortality; but the Epimodel estimated 250,000 AIDS
deaths in 1999 - the MRC showed 375,000 deaths from all causes leaving
fewer than expected for 'all cause'. A new model was used, ASSA 600, and
this yielded a 143,000 AIDS deaths total for 1999 leaving only 232,000
deaths from all other causes. The team suggested that all other causes of
death had been in decline since 1985 (despite cholera and malaria
epidemics, poverty increase, drug resistant killer diseases flourishing
and the state health system reportedly in terminal decline). The MRC
report was published in June 2001. ASSA 2000 then replaced ASSA 600 and
produced an even lower estimate of 99,000 AIDS deaths for 1999; since ASSA
2000 was scrapped a further estimate lowered the figure by another 10% -
so much for WHO/UNAIDS estimate of 250,000!
13. AIDS modelling has declared South African universities rampant
with infection with 1 in 4 undergraduates expected to die of AIDS within
10 years. Real samples suggest an on-campus prevalence about 1.1%. South
African banks tested 29,000 staff for HIV as models suggested 12% rates.
Real tests showed about 3%. Prisons test infections for HIV and the rate
in Grahamstown jail was only 2-4%, with only 2 deaths from AIDS in 7
years. Recorded prison rates are about 2.3% yet the media has reported
estimates of as much as 60%.
14. The World Bank claimed African teachers to be dying of AIDS
faster than being replaced and the BBC reported that 1 in 7 (14%) of
Malawian teachers would die in 2002. Bennell, a Health Policy Analyst,
found the all causes death rate amongst teachers in Malawi to be under 3%.
In Botswana figures appear to be 3 times lower than extimates and in
Zimbabwe 4 times lower.
15. If these figures and trends are accurate are WHO and UNAIDS
deceiving themselves and the global public; and if so is the worst may be
over for Africa in that the pandemic is levelling off or even declining in
worst hit areas?
16. If UNAIDS and WHO are so incredibly wrong, why do they persist in
the apparent deception - and could it have anything to do with their
allegiance to international pharmaceutical giants and 'AIDS industry'
bodies?
17. 350 million Africans get malaria each year but do not appear to
have the right to anti-malarial treatment. 2 million get TB annually yet
AIDS spending is 90 times higher than TB spending and there is little left
over for treating pneumonias, cancers, parasitics, bacterials or diabetes.
What scientific or political justification could there be for this?
Bibliography
Johannesburg magazine, The Individualist (July 2003); Africa -
Treating Poverty with Toxic Drugs by Liam Scheff
The Spectator (London) December 14th 2003; Cover Story; Africa Isn't
Dying of AIDS, as told by Rian Malan in Cape Town.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Peter Clegg claims that AIDS definitions only vary slightly between
countries. This is simply not true.
The US AIDS definition (1993) allows someone to be diagnosed with
AIDS without any disease, simply on the basis of low CD4 counts (or
skewed CD4/CD8 ratios) plus a positive HIV test. In the CDC's 1997
surveillance report, more than 60% of new AIDS diagnoses were in this
category. The CDC has not reported this information since then.
In Africa, by contrast, and other places where the WHO definition is
used, relatively generic symptoms (fever, cough, diarrhea, weight loss)
are necessary, but no HIV test!
In summary, the 1993 US AIDS definition can be satisfied by test
without
illness, and the African definition by illness without tests. It is hard
for
me to comprehend how this can be considered a slight variation.
The use of the word AIDS has a very powerful effect on scientists and
lay
people alike, but unfortunately not enough people know that it can have
several very different meanings. Quoting Lewis
Carroll's Alice "The question is whether you can make a word mean so
many different things".
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir
As a layman (HIV positive since 1986) with a minimum
amount of medical knowledge, I used to believe that
vaccination introduced a small quantity of an infectious
agent into our bloodstream in order to stimulate our
immunity against that agent.
Why have the fundamental, traditional laws of virology
disintegrated into Orwellian AIDS-speak to justify the
inability of retrovirologists to justify their hypotheses and
the resulting ongoing fruitless research? This research
has contributed zero benefit to public health, and made
a fortune for industry over the last twenty years.
If virology was to retain its credibility, a vaccine against
HIV/AIDS would have the immunising effect of
rendering a person "HIV positive".
The arrogance of the current medical paradigm denies
the right of the individual to choose (or even be fully
informed about) his diagnosis and treatment, and his
potentially positive involvement in his own healing
process. In any other domain this would be considered
a breach of fundamental human rights, but AID$ seems
to be a law unto itself.
How long will we allow this madness to continue?
Yours, not blinded by "AIDS-speak"
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
One of the reasons why Ed Rybicki (Rapid response “Re: HIV/AIDS is
indeed a colossal catastrophe”, 21st November 2003) did not refute David
Rasnick’s arguments (Rapid response “HIV/AIDS is indeed a colossal
catastrophe,” 8th November 2003) may be the following: While David
Rasnick’s well documented arguments are based on epidemiological evidence,
Ed Rybicki is a microbiologist working on HIV vaccines. However, given Ed
Rybicki’s credentials, he is extremely well qualified to help us with one
of our long standing questions regarding HIV. Would he please tell us
whether in 1983 Montagnier discovered HIV? Yes or no? If yes what is the
evidence in Montagnier’s paper which proves such a virus exists? If no,
who in his view is the discoverer of HIV and what is the evidence which
convinces him this is the case?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Nancy Padian's article(1) has, yet again, (yawn), been misquoted in an attempt to add credibility to arguments against the
prevailing theory on HIV/AIDS. I say 'arguments' because Rasnick publishes with Duesberg and other respondents seem to be
supporters of the Dr Eleopulos group. Duesberg is a retrovirologist and has never doubted that HIV exists, he just doesn't
think it is a bad thing. If the two groups had more common ground they might carry more weight. But that's another story...
From David Rasnick on 8 November 2003:
> The fact that mainstream HIV researchers have agreed that it takes on average 1000 unprotected sexual contacts with
HIV- positive partners to transmit HIV (36, 41, 42)
The reference given as '41' is the very same Padian paper, available here. As has been pointed out before it is entirely invalid to extrapolate the results of this study into some sort of
estimate of how many sexual contacts one might need to contract HIV. Reasons include:
1. All participants were aware that they were with a HIV-positive
partner.
2. They all new that they were part of a study examining transmission.
3. It (might be) safe to assume that none of the participants wanted to
be infected.
4. The group studied are all from a wealthy country which was saturated
with AIDS education.
5. Condom use increased substantially during the study period.
6. Anal sex decreased substantially during the study period.
7. The whole world does not live in North Carolina.
As you have claimed that HIV researchers have 'agreed' to this figure of a thousand contacts can you please advise which
studies make this claim as the ones that you have provided in no way agree on a figure that might be applied to 'unprotected'
contacts.
From Alexander H Huw on 8 December 2003:
> Nancy S. Padian et al reported: "We estimate that HIV infectivity for male-to-female transmission is low,
approximately 0.0009 per contact, and that infectivity for female-to-male transmission is even lower."
When and where did she publish that? In her paper(1) she did report findings from her Northern Carolina group as:
"Male-to-female transmission was approximately eight-times more efficient than female-to-male transmission and male-to-female
per contact infectivity was estimated to be 0.0009"
You might say that only a few words have been changed, however taking numbers that the authors, for obvious reasons, never
claimed to be applicable to the rest of the world and giving them new meaning is just a little deceptive don't you think?
Such use of 'evidence' has come the attention of other respondents(2):
"The misquoting of journal articles to suit personal hobby horses seems to be a standard tactic in the electronic age."
If you checked your sources a little more carefully rather than parroting eachother you might have a better chance of being
noticed in more than an unedited forum.
References:
(1) Padian NS. Shiboski SC. Glass SO. Vittinghoff E. Heterosexual
transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California:
results from a ten-year study. American Journal of Epidemiology.
146(4):350-7, 1997 Aug 15. [Abst
ract]
(2) Alan Carson. 'Re: JAMA citation.' BMJ Rapid Response. 5th December 2003
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Paul.D. Hooper, et al. ask:
"Two hundred years ago Edward Jenner showed that innoculation with
Cowpox gave immunity to Smallpox; the disease of one species giving
immunity to the disease of another species. I wonder if any thought has
been given to innoculating people with the Simian Immunosuppressive Virus
in order to give immunity to the Human I.Virus. But perhaps I am way
behind the times."
Like 'HIV', so-called 'SIV' has never been truely isolated and has
never been proven to be a 'retrovirus'. Indeed, 'retroviruses' do not
exist.
Dr Robert Gallo and Prof Luc Montagnier announced the 'discovery'
of a 'retrovirus' fully aware that there was no proof for it. Gallo and
Montagnier published electron micrographs of a few particles which they
claimed are a 'retrovirus' and are 'HIV'. But the photographs did not
prove the particles were a virus. Virologists Dr Stefan Lanka states:
"The rules demonstrating the existence of HIV (and retroviruses in
general) were never adhered to by those who devised them nor were they
ever validated." (Continuum Vol.4, No.3) 'Retroviruses' (as a source of
reverse transcription) have never been proven to exist as biological
entities. All 'retroviruses' ('HIV', 'SIV', 'BIV', 'FIV', 'MIV') are
hypothetical constructs. 'Retroviruses' are an over-determination of the
phenomenon of reverse transcription first discovered in 1970 by Howard
Temin whilst studying the Rous Sarcoma Virus. Reverse transcription is a
normal process of cells associated with cellular repair mechanisms
particularly of the cell membrane. Reverse transcription is not a property
unique to hypothetical 'retroviruses' - it also occurs in hepatitis
viruses as well as most mammalian and plant cells.
There is no Universal gold standard 'HIV' test tp prove 'HIV'
positivity. The 'HIV' antibody test does not detect a 'virus' but an
assortment of proteins that are non-specific to the hypothetical 'HIV'.
The proteins that are used in the 'HIV' test are merely the biological
outcome of stressed white blood cells used in the lab. In
'Bio/Technology', June 1993, 'Aids' analyst, Dr Eleni Eleopulos exposed
the non-specificity and unreliability of the 'HIV' 'antibody test'. Dr
Eleopulos's critique supports the argument for the banning of the
misleading 'HIV' tests.
There can be no Gold Standard 'HIV' test because there is no Gold
Standard 'HIV' isolate. On each continent there are different criteria
for 'HIV' positivity and 'Aids' definition. All evidence of 'HIV'
positivity must be confirmed by pure culturing of a patient's lymphocytes
and detection of whole, sell-free viral particles; so far this has never
been achieved. 'HIV' is termed a 'lentivirus' ('slow virus'): lentiviruses
are not known to be sexually transmitted.
The hypothetical 'HIV' is not sexually transmitted: cell-free viral
particles have never been found directly in semen. In 'American Journal
of Epidemiology' (Vol. 146, No.4), Nancy S. Padian et al reported: "We
estimate that HIV infectivity for male-to-female transmission is low,
approximately 0.0009 per contact, and that infectivity for female-to-male
transmission is even lower."
Moreover, Dr David Ho admits that 99.8 per cent of putative 'HIV
particles' are non-infectious; the remaining 0.2 per cent of 'viral
particles' , being defective, are not capable of replication. As a
transmittable entity, 'HIV' could not survive in nature. This indicates
that what we are calling 'HIV' is a misinterpreted, non-transmissible,
endogenous epiphenomenon that should never have been classed as a virus.
'HIV' is an artefact of cell-culture invented by Dr Robert Gallo. The
phenomena collectively known as 'HIV' are non-specific: reverse
transcriptase is non-specific; PCR is non-specific; Viral Load is non-
specific. Each property relating to 'HIV' can be shown to pertain to the
cells used in co-cultivation experiments. No particle of 'HIV' has ever
been obtained pure, free of contaminants; nor has a complete piece of
'HIV' RNA (or the transcribed DNA) ever been proved to exist.
Dr John Papadimitriou states: "They have not proven that they
actually have detected a unique, exogenous retrovirus. The critical data
to support that idea have not been presented. You have to be absolutely
certain that what you have detected is unique and exogenous, and a single
molecular species....the proper controls have never been done. ('Aids: The
failure of contemporary science', Neville Hodgkinson, Fourth Estate, 1996,
page 375). Dr Eleopulos and her colleagues argue that the greatest ingle
obstacle to understanding and solving 'Aids' is 'HIV'. 'HIV' imprinting
has become unconsciously internalised on such a global scale that people
will not be able to accept the brute reality that 'HIV' and 'SIV' do not
exist.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: An apparently missing control experiment on HIV/AIDS
The Perth group wrote:
“… Such an experiment has already been carried out. Budding retrovirus -like particles have been reported in “non-HIV infected” cord blood lymphocytes as well as many other cells used for “HIV isolation”.(4)
…”
In the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that the authors of (4) clearly state that the retrovirus-like particles are distinguishable from HIV-1 particles by EM alone (5) and that serological and other molecular methods also readily distinguish them.
In (5) the authors state:
“Both cell-associated and medium-associated VLP were also present in HIV infected cell cultures, and they could be distinguished from HIV by their characteristic morphology and smaller size.”
REFERENCES:
4. Dourmashkin, R.R., O'Toole, C.M., Bucher, D. and Oxford, J.S. 1991.
The presence of budding virus-like particles in human lymphoid cells used
for HIV cultivation.
p.122. In:Vol. I, Abstracts VII International Conference on AIDS,Florence.
5. Dourmashkin RR, Bucher D, Oxford JS.
Small virus-like particles bud from the cell membranes of normal as
well as HIV-infected human lymphoid cells.
J Med Virol. 1993 Mar;39(3):229-32.
PMID: 8468566
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests