I copied and pasted it below, in full, in the event that at some point it is no longer available at:
http://theperthgroup.com/LATEST/PGRevisitHIVExistence.pdf
The Perth Group revisits the existence of HIV.
This paper was recently presented on our behalf by Anthony Brink at The All Russia Parents�?BR>Assembly �?International Conference “Problems of HIV/AIDS and the family well-being of the
nation�?Ekaterinburg �?May 29th - 30th , 2008.
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos Biophysicist, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth
Hospital, Wellington St. Perth, Western Australia 6001
Valendar F. Turner Emergency Physician, Perth, Western Australia 6004
John M Papadimitriou Professor of Pathology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, ,
Western Australia 6009
Barry A. P. Page Physicist, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington St.
Perth, Western Australia 6001
David Causer Physicist, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Wellington St.
Perth, Western Australia 6001
www.theperthgroup.com
It is accepted that in 1983 Luc Montagnier from the Pasteur Institute in Paris proved the existence of a
new retrovirus presently known as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV�?.1 Retroviruses are a
special type of virus. Like all other viruses they are particles. The main constituents of the retroviral
particles are proteins and RNA. This means the minimal evidence one must have to claim the
discovery of a new retrovirus is proof showing:
(1) the existence of retroviral particles with unique morphology;
(2) the particles have unique proteins and RNA.
The “HIV�?particles
By definition viruses belonging to the family of retroviruses are “enveloped viruses with a diameter of
100 to 120 nm budding at cellular membranes. Cell released virions [cell free particles] contain
condensed inner bodies (cores) and are studded with projections (spikes, knobs)�?2 According to their
mode of assembly and fine structure they are divided into sub-families and genera. To date, neither
Montagnier nor anybody else have published an electron microscopy (EM) picture of a particle which
is claimed to be “HIV�?showing all the morphological characteristics of retroviral particles.
Furthermore, even today, there is no agreement as to what sub-family or genera the “HIV�?particles
belong.3 To say that “HIV�?is both a type-C particle and a type-D particle is no different from saying
one and the same animal is both a human and a chimpanzee.
HIV taxonomy
RETROVIRIDAE
ONCOVIRUS
Type B Type C Type D
LENTIVIRUS
Lentiviruses
SPUMAVIRUS
Family
Sub Family
Genus
Montagnier’s
& Gallo’s HIV
in 1983 &1984
Levy’s &
LM
HIV in
1984
HIV now (mostly)
Kuznetsov - type-C
Dax - type-D
References for this slide are at the end of this document.
First problem with particles
To say that “HIV�?is a type-C particle and a lentivirus is no different from saying that an animal is both
a human and a gorilla.
“HIV�?proteins and RNA
Obviously ownership of proteins and RNA like the ownership of body parts is defined by whose body
it is. If a scientist wants to analyse either the proteins or the RNA of apples, he goes into an orchard
and picks an object which either has been or can be proven to be an apple. He does not pick oranges
or pears or a mixture of apples, pears and oranges. Unlike apples where it may be feasible to perform
a protein or RNA analysis on just one apple, the retroviral particles are too small so that it is not
possible to obtain a single retroviral particle separate from everything else. If a scientist wishes to
analyse the proteins and the RNA of a retrovirus, his first task is to obtain a mass of retrovirus particles
separate from everything else which also contains proteins and RNA. That is, he has to isolate /
purify the particles. The method used to purify retrovirus particles for over 50 years is called banding
in density gradients.
Sample
1.16 gm/ml
density band
= “purified
virus�?BR>CENTRIFUGE
To do the purification a tiny sample of the supernatant (cell culture fluids which may contain the
retroviral particles) is carefully placed on top of a tube containing sugar solution whose density
gradually increases from top to bottom. The tube is then spun at very high speeds in a specially
designed centrifuge. The spinning goes on for many hours generating a force that gradually pushes the
different components further and further down through the solution. When a material component of
the mixture reaches a place in the solution where its density is the same as the solution surrounding it,
it will travel no further. This means that materials of similar density come together and are
concentrated in the form of a density band. It is accepted that retroviral particles band in sucrose
solutions at a density of 1.16 g/ml.
In the first half of the 1980s, Luc Montagnier et al, Robert Gallo et al claimed to have proven the
existence of a new virus, “HIV�? and its proteins and RNA. Both groups put tissues from AIDS
patients or those at risk in culture and after drastic manipulation, the culture supernatant (fluids) was
banded in sucrose density gradients. Both groups claimed to have obtained 1.16g/ml bands of
“purified�?virus particles. Among the many claims made by both groups, which we questioned from
the very beginning were the following:
(1) If the material in the 1.16g/ml band was “purified virus�? then all the proteins and the RNA which
banded there must have been retroviral. However, although they had many proteins in the “purified
virus�? for some unknown reason, only a few, those which reacted with antibodies in the patient’s sera,
were considered to be “HIV�? Similarly, instead of claiming that all the RNA in the “purified virus�?BR>was “HIV�?RNA (the “HIV�?genome), they chose only a special type of RNA, the so-called poly-A
(adenine rich) RNA. This poly-A RNA was said to be the “HIV�?RNA (the “HIV�?genome) although
as far back as 1972 Gallo knew this RNA was not specific to retroviruses.4 5
(2) Both groups of researchers knew that things other than retroviral particles, which also may contain
proteins and RNA, for example, cellular fragments present in the supernatant, may band at the density
of 1.16g/ml. Both groups had electron microscopes and access to experts in electron microscopy.
Yet, neither group published EM pictures of the material which they said was “purified�?virus to prove
this was the case. The reason for this can be found in an interview given en camera by Montagnier to
the French investigative journalist Djamel Tahi in 1997.6 Montagnier accepted that “…analysis of the
proteins of the virus [obviously this also applies to the viral RNA, genome] demands mass production
and purification. It is necessary to do that.�?When he was asked why they did not publish a picture of
the 1.16g/ml band to prove their claim that it represented “purified HIV�? Montagnier’s reply was that
even after “Roman effort�? in their “purified HIV�?particles they could not see any particles with the
“morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different�? In further
questioning, Montagnier replied “I repeat, we did not purify�? When Montagnier was asked if Gallo
purified “HIV�? he replied “I don’t believe so�? In 2001, the French investigative journalist, Djamel
Tahi, interviewed Jeanne Claude Chermann, the second author of the 1983 et al paper. When he was
asked if purification is necessary to identify the “HIV�?proteins he replied “Yes, of course�? When he
was asked how did they obtain the “HIV�?RNA he replied “From the virus, which we had concentrated
and purified�? To the question, “So, this step is an absolute prerequisite to extract the genome?�?
Chermann replied “Absolutely�? When he was asked why they did not publish pictures of their
purified HIV he replied “Because it had no interest�? (Personal communication from D Tahi: Interview
en camera with Professor Jean-Claude Chermann, Centre de recherche de Luminy, Marseille France �?BR>April 2001. [email protected]).
In 2003 we emailed Robert Gallo and asked if he was aware of the Tahi interview and Montagnier’s
response in regard to their being no EM of purified virus. Gallo replied “Montagnier subsequently
published pictures of purified HIV as, of course we did in our first papers. You have no need of
worry. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming.�?In fact, there was not one single picture of
purified “HIV�?published by Gallo in 1984 or at any time since. Neither did Montagnier publish any
such pictures. In 2001, Djamel Tahi interviewed Charles Dauget. Dauget was the Pasteur Institute
electron microscopist and one of the co-authors of the 1983 Montagnier paper. Like Montagnier,
Dauget was asked why no EM pictures of purified “HIV�?were published. His response was “We have
never seen virus particles in the purified virus. What we have seen all the time was cellular debris, no
virus particles�?
The first and only EM pictures of “purified HIV�?were published in 1997. In that year two studies
were published, one by a USA team, principal author Julian Bess,7 and the other by a Franco-German
group, principal author Pablo Gluschankof,8 with the first published electron micrographs of “purified
HIV�? While in the Gluschankof et al studies, the EMs were from the 1.16gm/ml, in the Bess et al
they were from pooled bands. The authors of both studies claimed that their “purified�?material
contained some particles with the appearances of retroviruses and in fact were “HIV�?particles. But
they admitted that their material predominantly contained particles which were not retroviruses but
“budding membrane particles frequently called microvesicles�?which they referred to as “mock virus�?
Indeed the caption to the Gluschankof et al electron micrograph reads “Purified vesicles from infected
H9 cells (a) and activated PBMC (b) supernatants�? not purified “HIV�? In further experiments, the
supernatant from non-infected cultures was also banded in sucrose gradients. Both groups claimed
that the banded material from these cultures contained only microvesicles, “mock virus�?particles, but
no “HIV�? In the arrowed particles which are said to be “HIV�? it is impossible to locate any which
have all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses. In fact, no particle in any study has the
principle morphological characteristic of retrovirus, a diameter of 100-120nM and surface spikes,
knobs. In the Franco-German study the average “HIV�?particle diameter is 136 nM and no particles
had a diameter less than 120 nM. In the USA study the corresponding dimensions are 236 nM and 160
nM. In other words, the American “HIV�?is twice the diameter of the European “HIV�? and all other
“HIV�?particles. Furthermore, retrovirologists, including Gallo accept that particles may exist which
have all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses but they are not viruses.9
The minimum absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition to claim that what are called “HIV�?BR>particles by the authors of these studies are retroviral particles and not cellular microvescicles is to
show that the sucrose density fraction obtained from the infected cells contains proteins which are not
present in the same fraction obtained from non-infected cells. Bess et al have shown this is not the
case. The only difference one can see between the proteins in the “purified virus�?and “mock virus�?is
quantitative and not qualitative. Since the material which was meant to contain “HIV�?particles and
the “mock virus�?had the same proteins, the only conclusion one can draw is that the “purified virus�?BR>and the “mock virus�?had the same constituents, that is, cell debris, microvescicles.
In a lengthy debate in the British Medical Journal Online lasting 25 months from 28/2/2003 to
17/4/2005, Brian Foley, the custodian of the Los Alamos HIV Database, claimed that purification is not
necessary to prove the existence of a virus. According to him, the existence of the HIV infectious
molecular clone proves that HIV exists. However, after repeated requests he was never able to produce
evidence which proves the existence of an HIV molecular clone, even by his own definition.
In 2006, based upon the evidence of two Australian “HIV�?AIDS experts, a man, Andre Parenzee, was
found guilty of transmitting “HIV�?to a female sexual partner. After the trial had finished, the defence
lawyer was made aware of our claim that to date nobody had proven the existence of “HIV�? He
wanted to appeal and asked us to be his expert witnesses. In order to be granted a re-trial, we had to
submit the new evidence in a hearing in front of a judge of the South Australian Supreme Court**.
The main new evidence on which the defence lawyer wanted to base his appeal was that “viruses are
proven to exist by a procedure virologists refer to as virus isolation. The presently available evidence
does not prove that a virus known as “HIV�?has been isolated�? purified. During our crossexamination,
the prosecution claimed that to prove the existence of a new virus purification is not
necessary and submitted a copy of the first chapter of a textbook called Medical Virology written by
David O White and Frank Fenner to support their claim.10 It appears that the prosecution experts
either did not read the book or did not understand what the authors of the book were saying.
According to the authors, the only way to analyse the proteins and the RNA of a new retrovirus and
thus to prove its existence is to purify the viral particles. They wrote:
"CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF VIRUSES
Methods of Purification
An essential prerequisite for the chemical analysis of viruses has been the development of
adequate methods of purification. Special problems are created by the close association of
viruses with the cells they parasitize; it is not an easy matter to free virions of associated cell
debris, or even from viral proteins synthesized in excess in the infected cell�?
Physical Methods of Purification. After partial purification and concentration by chemical
methods, or even without any preliminary treatment, virus particles can be separated from
soluble contaminants by centrifugation…Equilibrium (isopycnic) [density] gradient
centrifugation in dense solutes such as caesium chloride or potassium tartrate (or sucrose in
the case of enveloped viruses of low density), on the other hand, separates virions from
contaminants according to their buoyant density. After prolonged ultracentrifugation at very
high gravitational forces the virions will come to rest in a sharp band in that part of the tube
where the solution has the same density as the virions, usually within the range 1.15 �?1.4."
When we pointed out that the authors of the book support our claim, the prosecution submitted a paper
entitled "Sequence-Based Identification of Microbial Pathogens: a Reconsideration of Koch's
Postulates" as evidence that purification is not necessary, a virus can be proven to exist by genetic
methods. Again, we pointed out in court, that according to the authors of this particular article:
"…with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred
micro-organisms remains unclear"11 (emphasis ours). Ultimately, the prosecution "HIV" expert
witnesses admitted that to identify the viral genome, RNA, (this is also the case for the viral proteins),
the virus must be purified. Below is some of the evidence given by the prosecution experts:
Professor David Cooper: "Once the virus is purified, it's then genetically sequenced�?" (T673)
Professor David Cooper is one of the best-known international “HIV�?AIDS experts. He is the
Director of the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research. He is chairman of the
WHO/UN AIDS committee on “HIV�?AIDS vaccines; member of the strategy committee of WHO
which assists member states in treatment and care and prevention of “HIV�?disease; member of the UN
AIDS Trial Management Committee at Petra study on perinatal “HIV�?transmission in Africa; many
other international studies and committees including president of the International AIDS Society from
1994 to 1998 and has about 500 publications on “HIV�?AIDS.
Professor David Gordon: "I'm not sure he did or didn't. [If Montagnier purified]. I mean it's highly
likely that he attempted to separate out the virus to purify the virus because purification of virus is then
very useful for further studies for the nature of the virus and the nature of the immune response against
the virus." (T1032).
Further on: "It's a natural step from obtaining the virus in cell culture to then obtain purified virus".
(T1034).
Professor David Gordon was one of the two “HIV�?expert witnesses, the other was Professor Peter
McDonald, who both testified at Andre Parenzee’s original trial.
When Professor Dominic Dwyer was cross-examined regarding Montagnier's 1997 admission that he
did not purify "HIV", the following exchange took place between him and Kevin Borick, the lawyer for
the defence.
"Q. You accept that that's the first time, after 1983, that he admitted that he had not purified
the virus.
A. I've got no idea if he has said that on any other occasion.
Q. It's a significant fact, don't you think.
A. No I don't think so because I'm not quite sure what was meant by the journalist
and Montagnier when talking about purifying. If they want to go on and do
further studies with the virus, yes like everybody else they would be purifying
large amounts of virus and extracting protein and genetic material, doing the
analyses and so on. He may not have purified that particular virus as described
in his paper but that's because it wasn't required for the scientific evidence he
was producing." (T1002)
(In 1983 Montagnier did not claim to have produced scientific evidence for the "HIV" genome. But he
did claim "scientific evidence" for the existence of a new virus, "HIV" and for the "HIV" p24 protein
and that he achieved this by purifying it. When in 1985 he claimed "scientific evidence" for the "HIV"
genome, he did not have better evidence for purification than in his 1983 paper. Yet in his interview
with Djamel Tahi, Montagnier admitted that to characterise the viral proteins, including p24, it is
necessary to purify the virus).
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
