 |
|
Reply
| |
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).
|
|
 First
Previous
2 of 2
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
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
