THE LAST DEBATE: Reappraising AIDS Dec. 1999

[Guest guest]

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epdebate.htm

 

THE LAST DEBATE

Reappraising AIDS Dec. 1999

 

 

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1) Valendar F.Turner (2) John M Papadimitriou (3)

Helman Alphonso (4) David Causer (1)

 

There is a time in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to

fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in

miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat; And we must take the current

when it serves, or lose our ventures.

-- Julius Caesar Act V Scene III

 

 

 

Over recent months debate has been taking place amongst the HIV/AIDS dissident

groups regarding the wisdom of taking up the issue of HIV isolation as an

argument in our fight against mainstream AIDS science. According to some

dissidents this question should not be raised because:

 

it will provide HIV/AIDS protagonists with additional ammunition with which

to discredit us;

it makes little difference if people are being killed in the name of a

non-existent or a merely harmless virus;

it is an " existentialist " discussion.

 

On the other hand, other dissidents are of the opinion that we have no strong

arguments. To quote Vladimir Koliadin, " There are many observations…which seem

to provide strong support for the official theory and to refute dissident views.

Dissidents must " not turn the blind eye to inconvenient facts " .

 

From the very beginning the Perth group questioned the evidence which may well

prove the most significant " inconvenient " fact to fly in the face of all

HIV/AIDS protagonists. If the data do not prove beyond reasonable doubt the

existence of HIV then, in terms of a putative exogenous retrovirus, there can be

no " observations…to provide strong support for the official theory " . This is a

point from which the staunchest of each side cannot escape. However, although

our group has long published many scientific and epidemiological reasons for

questioning the existence of HIV, we largely chose to leave the facts speak for

themselves rather than making pronouncements such as " HIV does not exist " . There

were two reasons for this:

 

To facilitate publication;

To avoid a split in the group which Charles Thomas founded. Also, we could

not exclude the possibility that the HIV theory of AIDS could be deconstructed

without questioning the existence of HIV.

 

In 1996, when Peter Duesberg wrote a paper claiming the Continuum prize, he

directly challenged the Perth group. We then had no choice but to openly defend

our position, and we repeated the reasons in our lecture given at the 1998

Geneva International AIDS Conference. At present there are four reasons why it

is necessary to question the isolation and thus the existence of HIV:

 

Since 1996 it has become clear that, as far as the existence of HIV is

concerned, the Group for Reappraising AIDS is divided. Some of the best known

HIV experts are aware of this fact and it is now too late to pretend otherwise.

There is no proof that such an entity exists. To claim the opposite is to

deny the scientific evidence. Certainly conduct an anti-HIV debate avoiding this

issue as exemplified by many in our midst. However, in arguing against the HIV

hypothesis of AIDS in this manner one has to be content with half truths.

" HIV " is the main obstacle, indeed, the only obstacle, in deconstructing the

HIV theory of AIDS.

Demonstrating that HIV has no been isolated is not an " existentialist "

debate. In fact we consider this to be the strongest argument we can muster.

 

If we accept there is no proof for the existence of HIV then undoubtedly " the

construction AIDS, also called HIV disease, collapses immediately and all so

called " HIV tests " are automatically unmasked as being useless " . If, on the

other hand, we accept the existence of HIV, the debate could be endless, no

matter how courageously one fights and what sacrifices one makes. In this regard

Peter Duesberg’s unprecedented contribution is a wise and timely reminder to all

of us.

 

Why HIV isolation is necessary

 

The word " isolation " appears frequently in scientific papers and in debate

concerning HIV and indeed in virology in general. For example, Montagnier’s 1983

and two of Gallo’s 1984 Science papers contain the word in their titles as well

as the text. Use of this word signals the reader that the experimenter is

claiming that the data presented proves that a virus exists. If this is the

first such report the authors may claim to the discovery of a particular virus.

What all scientists must consider is whether the data presented as " isolation "

does indeed justify the claims.

 

A virus is an obligatory intracellular, replicating particle of particular

physical and chemical properties. Thus the first absolutely necessary, but not

sufficient step in proving the existence of a retrovirus is to isolate

retrovirus-like particles. That is, obtain the particles separate from

everything else. In other words, purify them. There are many reasons for this

including the following:

 

1. To prove that the retrovirus-like particles are infectious, that is, the

particles are a virus.

 

Finding a retrovirus either in vitro or in vivo is not proof that it originated

from outside, that is, the virus is infectious, exogenous. Furthermore, Gallo

was well aware of this problem as far back as 1976 when he wrote: " Release of

virus-like particles morphologically and biochemically resembling type-C virus

but apparently lacking the ability to replicate have been frequently observed

from leukaemic tissue " . In other words, it is not sufficient to claim a particle

is a retrovirus merely on appearances. To prove that retrovirus-like particles

observed in a culture are virus particles one must isolate (purify) the

particles, characterise their proteins and RNA and introduce them in a secondary

culture, preferably containing cells of a different type than the primary

culture. If any particles are released in the secondary culture, isolate them

and prove that their proteins and RNA are exactly the same as those of the

particles isolated from the primary culture. In these types of

experiments one must not ignore the pivotal importance of proper controls.

 

2. To determine their biological effects.

 

For this one must use pure particles otherwise it is impossible to determine

whether the effects are due to the virus particle or to contaminants. As Peter

Duesberg has pointed out in " Koch's second postulate: The microbe must be

isolated from the host and grown in pure culture " , " was designed to prove that a

given disease was caused by a particular germ, rather than by some undetermined

mixture of non-infectious substances " . Ironically Peyton Rous, the discoverer of

retroviruses, issued the same caveat for " filterable agents " , " retroviruses " in

1911.

 

3. To characterise the viral proteins.

 

The only way to prove that a protein is a viral protein is to obtain it from

that object, or when the object is very small, as is the case of viruses, from

material which contains nothing else but virus particles. In the material

contains impurities which also have proteins it is not possible to determine

what is viral and what is not. Only after the viral proteins are characterised

they can be used as antigens in the antibody tests.

 

4. To characterise the viral genome.

 

As for viral proteins the only way to prove that a stretch of RNA is viral, it

is to obtain it from material which contains nothing else but virus particles.

If the material contains impurities, the impurities must not contain RNA. Then,

and only then, can the RNA and its cDNA be used as probes and primers for

genomic hybridisation and PCR studies.

 

5. To use it as a gold standard.

 

Just because a virus or viral protein reacts with an antibody present in a

patient's sera, this does not prove that the antibody is directed against the

virus or its proteins. That is, the reaction is specific. To determine the

specificity of an antibody reaction one must use the virus as a gold standard.

Protagonist HIV experts such as Dr. Donald Francis agree. Speculating on a viral

cause for AIDS in 1983, Francis wrote, " One must rely on more elaborate

detection methods through which, by some specific tool, one can " see " a virus.

Some specific substances, such as antibody or nucleic acids, will identify

viruses even if the cells remain alive. The problem here is that such methods

can be developed only if we know what we are looking for. That is, if we are

looking for a known virus we can vaccinate a guinea pig, for example, with pure

virus...Obviously, though, if we don't know what virus we are searching for and

we are thus unable to raise antibodies in guinea pigs, it is

difficult to use these methods...we would be looking for something that might

or might not be there using techniques that might or might not work " (italics

ours). The only way to perform hybridisation and PCR studies is to use the viral

RNA or its cDNA or small fragments of it, as probes and primers. However, as

with antibodies which react with viral proteins, a positive result, especially a

positive PCR result, does not guarantee that what is detected is viral RNA. To

determine the specificity of the PCR the virus must be used as a gold standard.

 

HIV " Isolation "

 

All retrovirologists agree that one of the principal defining physical

characteristics of retroviruses is their density. In sucrose density gradients

they band at the density of 1.16g/ml. Using the method of sucrose density

banding in 1983 Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, Luc Montagnier and their colleagues

claimed to have isolated a retrovirus, that is, to have obtained material which

contained nothing else but " purified labelled virus " which now is known as HIV.

Similar claims were reported by Robert Gallo’s group in 1984. It goes without

saying that if the material was pure HIV, then all the proteins present in such

material must be HIV proteins. Instead, only the proteins which were found to

more often react with sera from AIDS patients and those at risk were said to be

HIV proteins, and the antibodies which reacted with them the specific HIV

antibodies. Since then the reaction of these proteins with antibodies is

considered proof for HIV infection. Again, if their material was pure HIV

then all the nucleic acids present in their material must be the HIV genome.

Instead, only some fragments of RNA rich in adenine were arbitrary chosen and

were said to constitute the HIV genome. Since then, these fragments have been

used as probes and primers for hybridisation and PCR studies, including the

determination of " viral load " .

 

The biggest problem in accepting Montagnier's and Gallo's groups claims is the

fact that neither published even one electron microscope picture of the " pure "

HIV to prove that the material contained nothing else but isolated,

retrovirus-like particles, " purified labelled virus " . In 1997 Montagnier was

asked by the French Journalist Djamel Tahi why such pictures were not published.

Incredibly Montagnier replied because in what his group called " purified " HIV

there were no particles with the " morphology typical of retroviruses " . When he

was asked if the Gallo group purified HIV, Montagnier replied: " I don't know if

he really purified. I don't believe so " . If this is the case then the 1983

Montagnier findings and the 1984 Gallo's finding, prove beyond all reasonable

doubt that they did not have any retrovirus much less a unique retrovirus, and

that the proteins and the RNAs which were present in their " purified " material

could not have been of retroviral origin.

 

In the same year, 1997, some of the best known HIV experts accepted that no

evidence existed which proved HIV isolation and thus a " virus to be used for

biochemical and serological analyses or as an immunogen " . In that year, two

papers were published in Virology with the first electron micrographs of

" purified HIV " obtained by banding the supernatant of " infected " cultures in

sucrose density gradients. The authors of both studies claimed that their

" purified " material contained some particles which looked like retroviruses and

were said to be the HIV particles. But they admitted that their material

predominantly contained particles which were not viruses but " mock virus " , that

is, " budding membrane particles frequently called microvesicles " . Furthermore,

" The cellular vesicles appear to be a heterogeneous population of both

electron-lucent and electron-dense membrane delineated vesicles ranging in size

from about 50 to 500nm " . Many, but not all of these mock viruses " appear " empty "

by electron microscopy " . According to the authors of these studies, one of the

reasons that some of the " mock virus " particles appear to have no core " might be

that the vesicles contain large amounts of protein and nucleic acid which are

unstructured " . They showed that the microvesicles " are a major contaminant " of

the " purified " HIV. Indeed, the caption to one of the electron micrographs

reads, " Purified vesicles from infected H9 cells (a) and activated PBMC (b)

supernatants " , not purified HIV.

 

In a further experiment the supernatant from non-infected cultures was also

banded in sucrose gradients. They claimed that the banded material from these

cultures contained only microvesicles, " mock virus " particles but no particles

with the morphology of HIV. The mock virus particles contains both DNA and RNA,

including mRNA which is known to be poly-A rich.

 

No reason(s) is given, other than morphological, for why some of the particles

in the fractions from the " infected " cells are virus particles and the others

" mock virus " . As far as morphology is concerned, none of the particles have all

the morphological characteristics attributed to HIV, or even retroviruses.

 

The minimum absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition to claim that what

are called " HIV-1 particles " are a retrovirus and not cellular microvesicles is

to show that the sucrose density fractions obtained from the " infected " cells

contain proteins which are not present in the same fractions obtained from

non-infected cells. However, Bess et al have shown this is not the case. The

only difference one can see in their SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis

strips of " purified virus " and " mock virus " is quantitative, not qualitative.

This quantitative difference may be due to many reasons including the fact that

there were significant differences in the history and the mode of preparation of

the non-infected and " infected " H9 cell cultures.

 

That the " viral " proteins are nothing more than cellular proteins was further

demonstrated by Arthur, Bess and their associates. In their efforts to make an

HIV vaccine they immunised macaques with, amongst other antigens, " mock virus " ,

that is sucrose density banded material from the supernatants of non-infected H9

cell cultures. After the initial immunisation the monkeys were given boosters at

4, 8 and 12 weeks. The animals were then challenged with " SIV " propagated either

in H9 cells or macaque cells. When the WBs obtained after immunisation but

before " SIV " challenge were compared with the WBs post-challenge, it was found

that challenge with " SIV " propagated in macaque cells had some additional bands.

However, the WBs obtained after the challenge with SIV propagated in H9 cells

were identical with the WBs obtained after immunisation, but before challenge.

In other words, the protein immunogens in the " virus " were identical with the

immunogens in the " mock virus " .

 

Since both the " mock virus " and " purified " virus contain the same proteins, then

all the particles seen in the banded materials including what the authors of the

1997 virology papers call " HIV " particles must be cellular vesicles. Since there

is no proof that the banded, " purified virus " , material contains retrovirus

particles then there can be no proof that any of the banded RNA is retroviral

RNA. When such RNA (or its cDNA) is used as probes and primers for hybridisation

and PCR studies, no matter what results are obtained, they cannot be considered

proof for infection with a retrovirus, any retrovirus.

 

To quote dissident Paul Philpott " I think a very convincing case can be made

against the HIV model. It's just that the points that really do refute the HIV

model have not been taken up as the principal weapons of our most visible

advocates. " Any scientist of any persuasion acquainted with these data must

question the evidence for the existence of HIV.

 

(1) Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington Street,

Perth 6001; (2) Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital; (3)

University of Western Australia; (4) Department of Research, Unversidad

Metropolitana Barranquilla, Colombia

 

References

 

1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. Reappraisal of AIDS: Is the oxidation caused by the

risk factors the primary cause? Med Hypotheses 1988;25:151-162.

 

2. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Is a positive Western

blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology 1993;11:696-707.

 

3. Duesberg PH. Peter Duesberg responds. Continuum 1996;4:8-9.

 

4. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, et al. The Isolation of

HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 1996;4:1s-24s.

 

5. Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F, Reitz M, et al. Some evidence for infectious type-C

virus in humans. In: Balimore D, Huang AS, Fox CF, eds. Animal Virology. New

York: Academic Press Inc., 1976:385-405.

 

6. Rous P. A Sarcoma of the Fowl transmissible by an agent separable from the

Tumor Cells. J Exp Med 1911;13:397-411.

 

7. Francis DP. The search for the cause. In: Cahill KM, ed. The AIDS epidemic.

1st ed. Melbourne: Hutchinson Publishing Group, 1983:137-150.

 

8. Tahi D. Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? Text of video interview with

Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th 1997. Continuum

1998;5:30-34.

 

9. Bess JW, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, et al. Microvesicles are a source of

contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virol

1997;230:134-144.

 

10. Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a

major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1

preparations. Virol 1997;230:125-133.

 

11. Arthur LO, Bess JW, Jr., Urban RG, et al. Macaques immunized with HLA-DR are

protected from challenge with simian immunodeficiency virus. J Virol

1995;69:3117-24.

 

 

VIRUSMYTH HOMEPAGE

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!