And here is the remainder of it (each post is only allowed to be so many characters, so it had to be separated):
Further on Professor Dwyer stated: "The general principles of what that textbook says are quite true.
The purification, as far as one can go, is important in analysis of any virus or bacteria, for that matter as
well." (T1199)
and: "Well, in the diagnostic sort of situation what that really is looking for is looking for presence of
those conserved bits of genetic material that you know to be the pathogen, be it HIV or flu or whatever,
you then use that technology to see whether those sequences or those bits are present in something else,
in another clinical sample, for example. And that really now has become, you know, the main method
of diagnosis of many many pathogens in a laboratory now…I mean with genetic testing �?I guess the
upside of course is you can do it on everybody, it's pretty cheap, it's extremely reliable and robust, the
downside is that you have to know the genetic structure to begin with, you have to have the genetic
sequence of what you are after. So when a new virus emerges, like SARS, you can't necessarily use,
reliably, nucleic acid testing until you get the sequence of that new virus for the first time. So then in
fact you are in a first identifier, you are required to use these more traditional methods of virus culture
and microscopy and so on", that is, purification. (T963)
Professor Dwyer is a senior medical virologist in the Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical
Research based at the Westmead Hospital in Sydney which provides specialist “HIV�?laboratory
services for much of New South Wales on behalf of the state government. He worked with
Montagnier at the Institute Pasteur and is one of his collaborators.
In his evidence Robert Gallo stated: "You have to purify". (T1257).
The "HIV" experts also accepted that for an RNA to be the genome of a unique retrovirus, in addition
to coming from material which contains nothing else but particles which have the morphology of
retroviruses, that is, purified particles, it must be the same RNA no matter from which “infected�?BR>culture or patient it originated. That is, the RNA must be a unique molecular entity.
Professor Cooper: "Once that virus is purified, it's then genetically sequenced and those sequences are
unique, just like every organism on the planet has unique sequences and markers." (T673).
The prosecution witnesses claimed that the "HIV" nucleic acids are unique to this "virus" and cannot be
found anywhere else. In our cross-examination we submitted evidence that this is not the case. This
evidence included a paper by EVA which showed that nucleic acid sequences similar to the "HIV" env
and gag genes were found in 95% of breast and gynaecological cancer in women and prostate cancer in
men.12-15 "The DNA fragments amplified in seven blindly selected breast cancer samples were
sequenced. The breast cancer DNA sequences showed at least 90% homology to the HIV-1 gene for
p41".
In their summary, which the Judge himself read to the court, the authors of the above studies
concluded: "The results obtained strongly suggest that the long-postulated breast cancer virus may in
fact be related to HIV-1".12
According to Professor Gordon the 10% difference in the nucleic acid sequences between the virus in
breast, gynaecological and prostate cancer on the one hand and HIV-1 on the other, makes them two
distinct retroviruses. "In particular, perhaps they might be 90% similar, which might sound quite a lot
but in genetic terms that's very distinct. So the difference between you and me is one in one thousand
of our nucleic acid bases is different, so 10% is enormous. The difference between humans and
chimpanzees is probably one to two per cent."
Therefore the “HIV�?experts admit that to prove the existence of proteins and genome of a new
retrovirus, that is to prove the existence of a new retrovirus, it is absolutely necessary to obtain the
proteins and the RNA from purified retrovirus-like particles and show that the RNA is a unique
molecular entity. No such evidence exists in the “HIV�?literature. Although they were asked, in the
Andre Parenzee hearing, the “HIV�?experts were not able to produce even suggestive evidence for
"HIV" purification. Robert Gallo was the exception. Robert Gallo claimed that they "succeeded in
mass producing the virus" (T1258) in a cell culture "thus making purification already accomplished"
(T1278). However: (i) the only way to prove that the "HIV" particles are mass produced in a culture is
by EM. No such pictures have ever been published. In fact, apparently Gallo's electron microscopist
had problems finding any particles with the morphology of retroviruses; (ii) viruses are produced in
cells. The only way to mass produce viruses is to have lots of cells. (Gallo started with �?06 cells per
milliliter�?; (iii) if as Gallo claims by mass production "you have got an enormous purification far
beyond the sucrose gradient alone", then why did he call his 1.16g/ml band "purified" HIV and not the
culture supernatant? Why, from the many proteins in the culture which reacted with antibodies in
patient sera, did he claim that only p41 and p24 were "HIV" just because they banded at 1.16g/ml?
Why, from all the poly(A)-RNAs which were in the culture, did he claim that only the poly(A)-RNA
which banded at 1.16g/ml was the "HIV" genome?
To further questioning, Gallo responded “We succeeded in putting [HIV]...into permanent culture,
meaning in a cell line, in a leukaemic cell that, itself, doesn’t have virus particles, and the virus comes
out in great quantity and forever, thus making purification already accomplished. But, of course, we
also use banded virus by sucrose gradient which they make a case out of we never did. You don’t
publish that. Of course we did.�?(T1278) However:
(1) the leukemic cell line Gallo used was H9 which is a clone of HUT-78. The HUT-78 cell line
originated from a patient with adult T4-cell leukemia which according to Gallo is caused by his
“other�?retrovirus HTLV-I. In fact Gallo himself reported that the HUT-78 contained HTLV-I
genomic sequences.16 In their interviews with Djamel Tahi, Montagnier stated that cell lines, like
the H9, have “a real soup�?of retroviruses. In turn Chermann stated “mass production means, for
example, use the so called continuous cell lines, using lymphocytes immortalized by cancer
inducing viruses, most frequently HTLV-I�?BR>(2) Gallo himself said that “HIV�?is released by budding at the cellular membrane, a process which he
claims causes holes in it and leads to death of the infected cell. This means that it is not possible
for “HIV�?to come out “in great quantity and forever�?without killing the cell. In other words, the
culture supernatant will contain cells, cellular debris, HTLV-I particles and thus cannot be
considered purified “HIV�?
It is true that Gallo performed in sucrose density gradients and that he called the 1.16g/ml material
“purified virus�? But it is also true that he never published any EM pictures to prove his claim.
When Gallo was asked if Montagnier purified “HIV�? he replied “He did a 116 cross gradient [1.16
sucrose gradient] in that paper, yes. I don’t know if he said it was purified. If you do that you don’t
have much virus.�?(T1300) Montagnier did claim that the 1.16g/ml band was his purified “HIV�?and
that is how he proved he had a new virus. Gallo reviewed Montagnier’s paper and recommended its
publication. If “you don’t have much virus�?at the 1.16g/ml band, why did Gallo recommend the
publication of Montagnier’s paper?
Regarding the necessity of RNA to be a unique molecular entity, the “HIV�?experts themselves pointed
out that the "HIV" genomes may vary not just by 10% but by up to 35%. That is, the prosecution
experts admit that unlike "every organism on the planet [who] has unique sequences", there are no
"unique" "HIV" sequences.
Conclusion
The “HIV�?experts including its “discoverers�?Montagnier and Gallo, admit that to prove the existence
of a new retrovirus it is absolutely necessary but not sufficient to have evidence:
(1) for the existence of particles with unique morphological characteristics of retroviruses;
(2) which proves isolation/purification of the retroviral particles.
After a quarter of a century of “HIV�? the experts cannot even agree as to what sub-family of
retroviruses the “HIV�?particles belong. In fact, not one single EM picture of the hypothetical “HIV�?BR>particles has all the characteristics of retroviruses. Although no effort has been spared and despite the
many claims, 25 years after the “discovery�?nobody has published an EM picture of purified “HIV�?BR>particles. The only EM pictures published for what is meant to represent “purified HIV�?were
published in 1997 by Bess et al and Gluschankof et al. Both groups admit that the vast majority of the
material which is said to represent “purified HIV�?is cellular microvesicles, that is, cellular debris. In
fact the caption to the Gluschankof EM picture reads “purified microvesicles�?instead of “purified
HIV�? Both groups claimed that among the microvesicles were some particles which were “HIV�?
However:
(1) no particle arrowed as “HIV�?had all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses;
(2) the same proteins were found in both the material which is supposed to have “HIV�?particles and
thus unique proteins as well as the “mock virus�?
This is as good an evidence as one can get that nobody has:
(1) proven the existence of the “HIV�?particles;
(2) purified the “HIV�?particles;
(3) proven the existence of “HIV�?proteins and RNA.
In 1997 the Bess et al and Gluschankof et al teams were worried that the RNA and proteins “used for
biochemical and serological analyses or as immunogens�?originated from material whose purity has not
“been verified�? Today, like in 1984 and 1997, we are still using PCR primers and antigens
originating from a material in which there is no proof that it contains particles having the
morphological characteristics of retroviruses, let alone purified particles, to test for a unique retrovirus
“HIV�? whose existence nobody has proven.
REFERENCES
**See http://www.garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/ The court transcripts are indicated by “T�?followed by
the page number.
1. Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Nugeyre MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J, et al. Isolation of a Tlymphotropic
retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS). Science 1983;220:868-71
2. Gelderblom HR, Özel M, Hausmann EHS, Winkel T, Pauli G, Koch MA. Fine Structure of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Immunolocalization of Structural Proteins and Virus-Cell
Relation. Micron Microscopica 1988;19:41-60
3. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Virus Challenge: Isolated facts about
HIV-- A reply to Robin Weiss. Continuum 1996;4:24-27
http://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no1.pdf
4. Gillespie D, Marshall S, Gallo RC. RNA of RNA tumor viruses contains poly A. Nature New Biol
1972;236:227-231
5. Edmonds M. A history of poly A sequences: from formation to factors to function. Prog Nucleic
Acid Res Mol Biol 2002;71:285-389.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=12102557
6. 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.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm
7. Bess JW, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. Microvesicles are a source of
contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virol 1997;230:134-
144.
http://leederville.net/links/Bess.pdf
8. Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, Sattentau QJ. Cell membrane vesicles are a major
contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virol
1997;230:125-133
9. Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F, Reitz M, Gallagher RE, Miller N, Gillespie DH. Some evidence for
infectious type-C virus in humans. In: Balimore D, Huang AS, Fox CF, editors. Animal
Virology. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1976:385-405.
10. White DO, Fenner FJ. Medical Virology. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press, 1986.
11. Fredericks DN, Relman DA. Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens: a
reconsideration of Koch's postulates. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 1996;9:18-33
.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=8665474
12. Rakowicz-Szulczynska EM, Jackson B, Szulczynska AM, Smith M. Human immunodeficiency
virus type 1-like DNA sequences and immunoreactive viral particles with unique association
with breast cancer. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 1998;5:645-53
.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=9729531
13. Rakowicz-Szulczynska EM. Relevance of the viral RAK alpha gene in diagnosis of malignant
versus nonmalignant tumors of the ovary and uterus. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2000;7:360-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=10799446
14. Rakowicz-Szulczynska EM, Jackson B, Snyder W. Prostate, breast and gynecological cancer
markers RAK with homology to HIV-1. Cancer Letters 1998;124:213-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=9500213
15. Rakowicz-Szulczynska EM, Markowski M, Mackiewicz A, Karczewska A, Snyder W, McIntosh
DG, et al. New protein and PCR markers RAK for diagnosis, prognosis and surgery guidance
for breast cancer. Cancer Letters 1997;112:93-101.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids
=9029174
16. Wong-Staal F, Hahn B, Manzuri V, Colombini S, Franchini G, Gelmann EP, et al. A survey of
human leukemias for sequences of a human retrovirus. Nature 1983;302:626-628
References for HIV taxonomy slide.
1. Constantine NT, Saville R, Dax E. Retroviral testing and quality assurance. Essentials for laboratory diagnosis. Halifax:
MedMira Laboratories, 2005.
2. Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, Nugeyre MT, Chamaret S, Gruest J, et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus
from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;220:868-71
3. Popovic M, Sarngadharan MG, Read E, Gallo RC. Detection, Isolation,and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses
(HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. Science 1984;224:497-500
4. Levy J, Hoffman AD, Kramer SM, Landis JA, Shimabukuro JM, Oshiro L. Isolation of lymphocytopathic retroviruses from
San Francisco patients with AIDS. Science 1984;225:840-842
5. Kuznetsov YG, Victoria JG, Robinson WE, Jr., McPherson A. Atomic force microscopy investigation of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HIV-infected lymphocytes. J Virol 2003;77:11896-
909.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=14581526 |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
