# HIV Test bogus, says PCR inventor **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 3, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403 "2003-09-03T21:05:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/161 "2003-09-08T15:53:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\* > Has there finally been scientific proof of the existence of this virus? Or just “virus-like particles”? (Note: I think Duesberg believes HIV exists, though he doesn’t believe it causes AIDS.) I want to find out how far behind the curve I am. Never to old to learn. Thanks in advance. \*\* Errrr…an electron micrograph was generated as far back as the early 80s. The entire genome has been decoded. Since those papers aren’t available online, I can only suggest going to a library and checking them, since I can’t verify them myself: Microbiologica. 1987 Apr;10(2):209-16. ``` Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV): an ultrastructural study. Filice G, Carnevale G, Lanzarini P, Orsolini P, Soldini L, Cereda PM. ``` H-9 cells producing HIV were examined by electron microscopy to value the virus-host cell relationships. HIV fine structure was also studied. HIV induces little cellular damages and it can penetrate into the cytoplasm by phagocytosis. Phagocytosis of the virus could play an important role in the mechanism of cellular infection. Virology. 1987 Jan;156(1):171-6. ``` Fine structure of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and immunolocalization of structural proteins. Gelderblom HR, Hausmann EH, Ozel M, Pauli G, Koch MA. ``` Ultrathin section and surface replica electron microscopy were applied in combination with immunoelectron microscopy to elucidate the fine structure of HIV. The shell of the tubular core shows p24 antigenicity, while p17 is located at the inner leaflet of the lipid membrane. The virus particle is studded with 70-80 protrusions. These knobs have a diameter of 15 nm, a height of 9 nm, and are probably arranged in a T = 7 I symmetry. The major envelope protein gp120 is spontaneously shed from the viral surface. A possible role of released gp120 in pathogenesis is discussed. J Electron Microsc Tech. 1989 Jun;12(2):95-100. ``` Ultrastructural features of the AIDS virus (HIV) and its morphogenesis. Nakai M, Goto T, Imura S. Department of Microbiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan. ``` HIV particles were usually seen on the surface of established lymphoid cells derived from AIDS patients or on CEM cells infected with HIV, and sometimes in cytoplasmic vacuoles. The virus particles were formed by a budding process from the plasma membrane of an infected cell. The budding particles were of a doughnut form. Various profiles of virus particles were seen extracellularly: type 1 had a bar-shaped, electron-dense core, type 2 had a central and type 3 an eccentric electron-dense round core, type 4 was doughnut-shaped, and type 5 had a layered core. However, projection patterns of the AIDS virus model suggested that type 1, 2 and 3 particles are similar. Therefore, the AIDS virus may be one of three main types: with or without a dense core, and with a layered core. It is thought that a particle with a layered core and a doughnut-type particle may be immature viruses. Micron. 1998 Apr-Jun;29(2-3):123-38. ``` The life-cycle of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Goto T, Nakai M, Ikuta K. Department of Microbiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan. tgoto@art.osaka-med.ac.jp ``` The life-cycle of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) has been studied using several techniques including immunoelectron microscopy and cryomicroscopy. The HIV-1 particle consists of an envelope, a core and the region between the core and the envelope (matrix). Virus particles in the extracellular space are observed as having various profiles: a central or an eccentric round electron-dense core, a bar-shaped electron-dense core, and immature doughnut-shaped particle. HIV-1 particles in the hydrated state were observed by high-resolution electron cryomicroscopy to be spherical and the lipid membrane was clearly resolved as a bilayer. Projections around the circumference were seen to be knob-like. The shapes and sizes of the projections, especially the head parts, were found to vary with each projection. HIV-1 cores were isolated with a mixture of Nonidet P40 and glutaraldehyde, and were confirmed to consist of HIV-1 Gag p24 protein by immunogold labelling. On infection, the HIV-1 virus was found to enter the cell in two ways: membrane fusion and endocytosis. After viral entry, no structures resembling virus particles could be seen in the cytoplasm. In the infected cells, positive reactions by immunolabelling suggest that HIV-1 Gag is produced in membrane-bound structures and transported to the cell surface by the cytoskeletons. A crescent electron-dense layer is then formed underneath the cell membrane. Finally, the virus particle is released from the cell surface and found extracellularly to be a complete virus particle with an electron-dense core. However, several cell clones producing defective mature, doughnut-shaped (immature) or teardrop-shaped particles were found to be produced in the extracellular space. In the doughnut-shaped particles, Gag p17 and p24 proteins exist facing each other against an inner electron-dense ring, suggesting that the inner ring consists of a precursor Gag protein showing a defect at the viral proteinase. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1993 Oct;9(10):929-38. ``` Further evidence of icosahedral symmetry in human and simian immunodeficiency virus. Nermut MV, Grief C, Hashmi S, Hockley DJ. National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Hertfordshire, England. ``` Specimens of HIV and SIV have been examined by electron microscopy, using the techniques of conventional thin sectioning, freeze-substitution, cryosectioning, and cryomicroscopy of frozen hydrated specimens. In addition freeze-drying and critical point drying were used for both shadowed replicas and scanning electron microscopy. Thin sections revealed hexagonal, pentagonal, or near-spherical profiles. Angular particles were seen in shadowed replicas and also by scanning electron microscopy. The images observed were consistent with an icosahedral shape of the virus. It is proposed that mature HIV (SIV) is an icosadeltahedron with flat triangular facets. Size measurements of the specimens showed a wide range of values for conventional embedding, but a narrow range for specimens prepared by low-temperature techniques. J Gen Virol. 1988 Jun;69 ( Pt 6):1425-9. ``` Ultrastructure of human immunodeficiency virus type 2. Palmer E, Martin ML, Goldsmith C, Switzer W. Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. ``` The ultrastructure of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) was determined by negative stain and thin section electron microscopy (EM). Some virus particles had surface projections about 10 nm in length which were evenly spaced. Nonidet P40-treated particles which were penetrated by stain revealed a distinctive off-centre cone-shaped core and, in addition, free-lying cores were also seen in detergent-treated preparations. The surface of the cores was composed of a layer of small subunits. The structure of HIV-2 determined by thin section EM was the same as that deduced by negative stain EM. Nakai M, Goto T. Ultrastructure and morphogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus. J Electron Microsc (Tokyo). 1996 Aug;45(4):247-57. Review. Department of Microbiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan. The ultrastructure and morphogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were elucidated by observation with several techniques including immunoelectron microscopy and cryo-microscopy. The virus particle consists of an envelope, a core and matrix. The virus particles were observed extracellularly as having one of three profiles: (1) a centric or an eccentric electron-dense core, (2) rod-shaped electron-dense core, and (3) doughnut-shaped. HIV-1 particles in the hydrated state were observed by high resolution electron cryo-microscopy to be globular, and the lipid membrane was clearly resolved as a bilayer. Many projections around the circumference were seen to be knob-like. The shapes and sizes of the projections, especially head parts, were found to vary in each projection. By isolation with Nonidet P40 and glutaraldehyde, HIV-1 cores were confirmed to consist of p24 protein by immunogold labeling. When the virus enters the cell, two entry modes were found: membrane fusion and endocytosis. No structures resembling virus particles could be seen in the cytoplasm after viral entry. In HIV-1-infected cells, positive reactions by immuno-labeling suggest that HIV-1 Gag may be produced in membrane-bound structures and transported to the cell surface by cytoskeletons. Then a crescent electron-dense layer was first formed underneath the cell membrane. Finally, the virus particle was released from the cell surface. Several cell clones producing defective particles were isolated from MT-4/HIV-1 cells. Among them, doughnut-shaped or teardrop-shaped particles were seen to be produced in the extracellular space. In the doughnut-shaped particles, Gag p17 and p24 proteins faced each other against the inner electron dense ring, suggesting that the inner ring consists of a precursor Gag protein. Tell me if you need more, there’s plenty ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/162 "2003-09-08T16:06:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by astro \* > \*\*To reach the conclusion you do I have to make the assumption that thousands of intellectually aggressive scientists graduating at the top of their medical classes, with access to billions of dollars in corporate and governmental funding and the most powerful research tools and hardware that human science has at it’s disposal, and are otherwise competent to unravel the biological bases of disease based on the currently accepted paradigms, somehow become irrational, sheep like stumblebums when faced with the question of the how the HIV-AIDS relationship works. You’re assuming that these well-equipped scientists \*have actually followed the scientific method \*in determining the fundamentals of HIV-AIDS. But this the issue being disputed. **The prerequisite studies necessary to show that HIV is a cytotoxic retrovirus that causes AIDS have not been done.** From Gallo’s “discovery via press release” to the flawed AZT and PI studies, there is mainly obfuscation. David Rasnick’s report, “NON-INFECTIOUS HIV IS PATHOGENIC”, should at least trouble anyone interested in the scientific method. Conspiracy? Not exactly. But one only has to imagine the consequences of finding out that the dissenters were right … **and that doctors and scientists had for decades been unwittingly and unquestioningy poisoning their otherwise healthy patients, dragging babies away from their HIV+ mothers, and so on … the public’s trust in their medical industry would implode.** Not to mention the lawsuits and summary executions. So those who know quietly plug away, creating drugs or cocktails that are less toxic and accomplish nothing other than reduce artificial markers for HIV, hoping to get away with their lives intact … while those who don’t, waste untold amounts of time, talent, and money on **a theory about nothing.** > [@](#): > > The problem here is that people with an agenda that has relatively little to do with the epidemiology of AIDS and everything to do with the perceived immorality of homosexual behavior, have latched onto this relatively obsolete contrarian research and make great sport of flogging other laymen with how wrong headed “big science” is on this issue, and that the problem would largely go away if those darn sodomites would just stop buggering each other and get with God. Ah, so you have finally taken the low road. Yes, Peter Duesberg et al are **just trying to fool 99% of the medical establishment just so that more gays will die.** Talk about conspiracy theories … and baseless, vicious slander. > [@](#): > > I vote for the mainstream researchers based on the bulk of evidence to date. Beyond this, and quite frankly simply based on my lifetime observation of how these mainstream vs. fringe contrarians tussles generally pan out over time, 99.99 percent of the time over the past 40 years or so the scientific fringe contrarians were wrong. Place your bets as you see fit. 40 years … sounds familiar … yes … Piltdown Man! Regardless of whether “some” scientists dissented, **the public** was led to believe the matter was settled for 40 years. Only today, the blind acceptance of HIV-AIDS has resulted in death and waste over a virus **no one has yet seen.** (though I await correction on this matter …) ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/163 "2003-09-08T16:21:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*Only today, the blind acceptance of HIV-AIDS has resulted in death and waste over a virus no one has yet seen. (though I await correction on this matter …) \*\* I can only assume that I am on your ignore list, since you happily ignore a truckload of evidence I posted, and claim that the virus the genome of which has been decoded doesn’t really exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/164 "2003-09-08T16:23:09Z")
Odd question– **TrueSkeptic** , what do you do for a living? Ditto to **Mex**? ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/165 "2003-09-08T16:59:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > **Errrr…an electron micrograph was generated as far back as the early 80s. The entire genome has been decoded.** Thanks for the detailed response (no sarcasm intended). Let’s see … let’s start with Gelderblom since his 1987 pictures were considered the “benchmark” for so long. Virology. 1987 Jan;156(1):171-6. Fine structure of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and immunolocalization of structural proteins. Gelderblom HR, Hausmann EH, Ozel M, Pauli G, Koch MA. [A CRITIQUE OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE ISOLATION OF HIV: A Summary of the Views of Papadopulos et. al.](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epsummary.htm) "To date [**Aug 1997**], many electron micrographs of particles claimed to be retrovirus-like have been published. **However, not one of these micrographs demonstrates particles satisfying both main morphological features of retroviral particles, that is, a diameter of 100-120nM and a surface studded with knobs.** … “To prove the existence of HIV, both Montagnier’s group in 1983 and Gallo’s group in 1984 banded supernatant in sucrose density gradients. However, until March 1997, for unknown reasons, neither these groups nor anyone else had ever published an electron micrograph of the banded (purified) material to show which if any of the many different variety of particles seen in gross cell cultures [20] are present at 1.16 gm/ml. Indeed, until March this year it was not possible to know whether any structured material whatsoever was present at the density which defines retroviral particles. **Nonetheless, from the time of the Montagnier and Gallo studies [16,17], the material from culture supernatants banding at 1.16 gm/ml has been regarded as pure HIV particles**. Acting on this premis, the proteins which are present in this band and which react with antibodies present in the sera of AIDS patients are claimed to be the HIV proteins and the antibodies reacting with such proteins the HIV antibodies. Similarly, a particular portion of the RNA banding at 1.16 gm/ml is claimed to be the HIV genome. **All these conclusions were drawn without ever proving that the proteins and RNA are structural elements of a particle, viral-like, retroviral-like or any other particle of any other kind, that is, without any scientific basis.** ” Regarding Bess JW, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. (1997). Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virol. 230:134-144 and Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, Sattentau QJ. (1997). Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virol. 230:125-133: "1. The authors of both papers concede that the particles which are present in the banded material and which are said to be HIV represent **only a very small fraction of the total material.** Gelderblom et al. state that the material contains “an excess of [cellular] vesicles with a size range 50-500nm, as opposed to a minor population of virus particles…cellular vesicles appear…to be a major **contaminant** of HIV preparations enriched by sucrose gradient centrifugation”. 1. For the small number of particles deemed to be “HIV” **no evidence is given that they are even a retrovirus-like particle.** Indeed, to the contrary: (a) the particles \*\*do not appear to have surface spikes \*\*(knobs), although the possibility that such projections may be present cannot be excluded. (However, in other papers published by many researchers including Gelderblom and his associates such projections are noted to be absent [14,20]; (b) the particles referred to as “HIV” **are not spherical and have diameters exceeding 100-120 nM.** In the EM in Gluschankof et al. [19] there are arrows pointing to five “HIV” particles \*\*devoid of surface projections \*\*whose dimensions are 121 X 145; 121 X 169; 121 X 145, 121 X 145 and 133 X 145 nM respectively. In Bess et al. [18] there are a total of six “HIV particles” also devoid of surface projections whose dimensions are 160 X 240; 200 X 240; 280 X 280; 208 X 250; 167 X 250 and 250 X 292 and nM respectively. “Thus, by definition, the particles **cannot be retroviral-like particles and even less, a unique retrovirus** , HIV. Furthermore, the particles noted by Gluschankof et al. and Bess et al. **cannot be the same particle**. Indeed, the method adopted by all HIV researchers for proving the existence of HIV, that is, excluding proof based on purification of particles with retroviral morphology shown capable of faithful replication but rather by detection of antibody/protein reactions, does not satisfy any scientific principle and defies common sense.” Note that the March 1997 photos are supposed to be the first of “Pure HIV.” Stefan Lanka: "EM photo of very small particles in ultrathin cell-line section. The particles are **claimed to be HIV, but are cellular and not viral particles (they are normally refered to as ‘virus- like particles’, ‘microvesicles’ and ‘microsomes’).** The debris on the lower part of the photo indicates that the particles are **not purified or isolated**. These photos are always published **without any evidence that the particles are of viral origin.** "Computer enhanched EM photo of a cell surrounded by small particles. The blue/grey stained particles, which are claimed to be HIV particles attacking or (depending on the publication) leaving a white blot cell, **are artefacts of the staining and/or fixation process** and at best may be cellular particles entering or leaving the cell (in a well known process called endo-/ or exocytosis). These kind of nice photographs, made by Lennart Nilsson, have been published **without any evidence that the particles have a viral origin.** “HIV researchers believe the AIDS virus looks like this; like a bomb or water (blood) mine. This model is based on the detection of cellular particles in cell lines **under very special conditions**. Such particles **never have been isolated or somehow else demonstrated to exist as a virus or be of viral origin. This is nothing but a modell based on a collection of proteins of various size (no other characterization!)**” [pics here](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data2/slvirusphotos.htm) Since these unpurified particles have not been demonstrated to be of a virus, a couple of these papers are moot. These others () look interesting, although it would be nice to see [how they isolated HIV, and which … version … they were studying.](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplyek.htm) Because > [@](#): > > As far as “HIV particles look different” is concerned, in cultures of tissues from AIDS patients one can see a “zoo” of particles with varying morphologies. For example: > > (a) Hockley and his colleagues from the Electron Microscopy and Photography Section and Division of Virology at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in the United Kingdom describe a profusion of particles which they divide broadly into three groups, mature, ring-like and small with spikes. The mature particles “were approximately spherical in shape and 100 to 150 nm in diameter. The outer lipid membrane was frequently broken or absent in places and there was no evidence of surface spikes…A few mature particles were found that were larger than average and appeared to contain a double nucleoid…in the preparation of HIV there were always many vesicles with granular contents in which it was not possible to recognize a distinct nucleoid”. > > Also, “The ring-like particles had a more consistently spherical shape and were larger (140 nm in diameter)” and the small particles “were usually spherical but sometimes slightly angular in shape and 65 to 90 nm in diameter” and had spike-like projections on their surface [10]. > > (b) Gelderblom who has done most of the EM studies in HIV/AIDS research reported that although HIV is considered to have a cone shaped core he and his colleagues found centrosymmetric and tubular cores as well. The caption to one of the many photographs reads: “Virions can be seen having either elongated, ‘baton-like’ tubular cores 30-35 nm in diameter or containing more than one core. Tubular and regular cone-shaped cores can coexist within one virion”. The text states: > > “Rarely, tubular core structures reminiscent of batons with a diameter of 30 35 nm and a length of 150- 250 nm are observed” [8]. (If cores are of such dimensions then some of the particles must exceed twice the diameter of retroviral particles). > > © Lekatsas and other virologists from Pretoria and Johannesburg: “We used the characteristic cylindrical structure in the core as an identifying characteristic for the virus to distinguish it form cellular debris and also noted that it may vary considerably in its dimensions and morphological features. Fig. 1 depicts a variety of such features encountered in our preparations. We have found two basic virus particle sizes, 90nm and 120 nm, both present in large numbers. The larger particle bears no surface projections while the smaller particle is rarely ‘naked’ and usually bears projections. We have seen no particles with partial loss of projections, suggesting that small particles retain these structures while large particles lose them soon after liberation” [11]. > > (d) The US CDC: HIV particles are “usually round and have a diameter of about 85-95 nm…Virus with bar-shaped nucleoids and particles with a tear-drop shape are commonly seen in HTLV-III/LAV infected lymphocytes, sometimes ring-shaped particles without dense nucleoids are also seen” [12]. > > Particles of the smaller dimension have also been found in both the non-infected H9 cell line and in another cell line called CEM. Both cell lines are used extensively in HIV/AIDS research and they are the cell lines from which practically all the EM studies have been reported. Particles have also been found in other cell lines such as C8166, EBV transformed B-cells, and cord blood lymphocytes [13]. Do the following have pictures of pure HIV? Which version? AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1993 Oct;9(10):929-38. ``` Further evidence of icosahedral symmetry in human and simian immunodeficiency virus. Nermut MV, Grief C, Hashmi S, Hockley DJ. National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, Hertfordshire, England. ``` J Gen Virol. 1988 Jun;69 ( Pt 6):1425-9. ``` Ultrastructure of human immunodeficiency virus type 2. Palmer E, Martin ML, Goldsmith C, Switzer W. Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. ``` Nakai M, Goto T. Ultrastructure and morphogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus. J Electron Microsc (Tokyo). 1996 Aug;45(4):247-57. Review. Department of Microbiology, Osaka Medical College, Japan. ---
**Author:** ![scule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@scule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scule)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/166 "2003-09-08T17:06:19Z")
I’m going the route of **Cervaise** and saying goodbye to this debate. The doubters will never be satisfied with the evidence presented to them, but so long as they remain a fringe group like the Duesburgs and Mullis’ of the world, no harm done. In the mean time, I will continue to work on HIV surveillance for my country, and cooperate with other epidemiologists, doctors, and researchers to help prevent HIV (and thus AIDS). To the deniers, good luck. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/167 "2003-09-08T17:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor \* > \*\*Odd question– **TrueSkeptic** , what do you do for a living? > > Ditto to **Mex**? \*\* As others here have guessed, I make a living on my illegal armadillo farm, where I closely follow [mrc.org](http://mrc.org) and try to devise ways to coyly expose myself as a conspiracy theorist bent on the clever plan of destroying druggies and gays by supporting the reintroduction of real science into AIDS research, thereby ultimately denying them access to miraculous, life-saving drugs. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/168 "2003-09-08T17:50:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by trueskeptic \* > \*\*Thanks for the detailed response (no sarcasm intended). Let’s see … let’s start with Gelderblom since his 1987 pictures were considered the “benchmark” for so long. \*\* Question: Did you read the original articles? How do you know the criticism you cite is actually valid? What makes you think the authors of the criticism didn’t merely make it up? What expertise do you have to assess their conclusions? You see, the problem is that we’re talking about papers in peer reviewed journals, i.e. deemed to be either reasonably accurate, or at least warranting discussion. Your dissenters don’t just claim that the original author is wrong, they claim that all the reviewers are wrong, too. And you decide to believe one over the other based on what? The fact that you’d like them to be right. Totally aside from that, your entire argumentation continues to ignore the fact that the genome of HIV has been decoded, that the proteins it codes for are thus known, and that their individual structure has been determined in numerous cases. As such, any and all of the concerns you cite are moot, since the connection between protein (or RNA) and the virus can be made directly from the encoding genome. Unless, of course, you want to postulate a huge conspiracy of totally unrelated researchers across the globe plugging together a retrovirus genome. Go over to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=12171](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=12171) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=10902](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=10902) and come back and tell us you’re looking at fabrications. The data has been independently verified numerous times (cf. e.g. [http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/1/152?view=full&pmid=9847317](http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/1/152?view=full&pmid=9847317) ) Through the use of this sequence data, HIV has been shown to be present in blood and serum samples of patients in Africa as far back as 1959 (“An African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic” by Tuofu Zhu, Bette T. Korber, Andre J. Nahmias, Edward Hooper, Paul M. Sharp, David D. Ho in Nature391, 594 - 597 (05 Feb 1998) ) ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/169 "2003-09-08T18:19:57Z")
This is interesting: on the legal front, the HIV-AIDS paradigm is now illegal in Germany. "During the last six years proofs have been collected for the following actions that have taken place inside Germany: The State intentionally is using non-valid tests to persuade healthy persons to take a deadly long-term medication. The persons, being healthy before being tested die during the long-term-medication. The German Parliament, since years intentionally is securing that this crime continues. Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund: Judge Hackmann announced the statement of the “Bundesgesundheitsbehörde”, the Federal German Health Authorities, which says that in connection with AIDS there has never been isolated a virus (Dr. Marcus, Robert-Koch-Institute (RKI) Berlin). The judge figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet. 5-13-15-2002-010526). The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus‘ statement itself. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 8 months of jail because of attempted coercion of the authorities to adhere and act according to law and order. The document of the German Bundestag DS 12/8591 holds proof that the Bundestag had already known in 1994 that neither Montagnier (1983) nor Gallo (1984) had isolated any virus in connection with AIDS. Based on this the Bundestag safeguarded the persistent lie of the AIDS information campaign (RKI) from 9th March 1995 about the successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS. As a consequence of non-tolerating this lie and because of non-tolerating the deadly consequences of this lie, the trial took place on 15th January 2001." [http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66369.php](http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/66369.php) I guess you can’t lump “AIDS deniers” and holocaust deniers together anymore, since holocaust denial is also illegal in Germany. To Bosda and others: I am a chemist and biochemist by training, I am not homophobic and have been, over the years, an avid user of recreational drugs. I didn’t like Duesburg’s hypothesis when I first read it, but after reading it, was convinced that the science behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis was not sound. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/170 "2003-09-08T19:06:32Z")
Izzy. Thanks. That is interesting about someone intentionally infecting himself. Could I get a site for that? Not that I doubt you but I would like to follow what information is available on the guy. If the experiment was controlled (ie, they KNOW the needle contained HIV) and the man stays clean for ten years or so it would be interesting to say the least. I firmly believe the guy is going to die of AIDS but I have to grant him some extreme courage to do something like that. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/171 "2003-09-08T19:14:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **astro** _ > > To reach the conclusion you do I have to make the assumption that thousands of intellectually aggressive scientists graduating at the top of their medical classes, with access to billions of dollars in corporate and governmental funding and the most powerful research tools and hardware that human science has at it’s disposal, and are otherwise competent to unravel the biological bases of disease based on the currently accepted paradigms, somehow become irrational, sheep like stumblebums when faced with the question of the how the HIV-AIDS relationship works. > > I would further have to assume that beyond these mainstream scientists being blinkeredly wrong, that a small group of scientists with an alternate point of view whose research _specific to this question_ is (quite frankly) not that well regarded scientifically or methodologically by the majority of their peers, are correct. Fucking brilliant. And to see it rebutted with this: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **trueskeptic** _ > > You’re assuming that these well-equipped scientists \*have actually followed the scientific method \*in determining the fundamentals of HIV-AIDS… > > Conspiracy? Not exactly. But one only has to imagine the consequences of finding out that the dissenters were right … **and that doctors and scientists had for decades been unwittingly and unquestioningy poisoning their otherwise healthy patients, dragging babies away from their HIV+ mothers, and so on … the public’s trust in their medical industry would implode.** Not to mention the lawsuits and summary executions… > > 40 years … sounds familiar … yes … Piltdown Man! Regardless of whether “some” scientists dissented, **the public** was led to believe the matter was settled for 40 years. Only today, the blind acceptance of HIV-AIDS has resulted in death and waste over a virus **no one has yet seen…** Pathetic. **"true"skeptic** , you’re an out-and-out loon. But hey, we can at least say thank you - it’s people like you that keep **Cecil** in business. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/172 "2003-09-08T19:50:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Roger\_Mexico \* > \*\*This is interesting: on the legal front, the HIV-AIDS paradigm is now illegal in Germany. > \*\* I can assure you, it is not. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Course of Events on January 15th 2001 at the District Court (Landgericht) of Dortmund: > > The judge figured out that the German Bundestag had been backing the lie of the Federal Health Authorities (RKI, Dr. Marcus, 9.3.95) about a successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS in the course of a petition (Art. 17, Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pet. 5-13-15-2002-010526). \*\* You don’t think you can construct meaningful sentences? Why should a district court be concerned with a petition? Do you want me to walk over to the district court and give you the detailed ins and outs of the case, if it even exists? You see, it happens to be about half an hour on foot from where I am sitting. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr. Marcus‘ statement itself. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 8 months of jail because of attempted coercion of the authorities to adhere and act according to law and order. \*\* Huh? Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense whatsoever. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The document of the German Bundestag DS 12/8591 holds proof that the Bundestag had already known in 1994 that neither Montagnier (1983) nor Gallo (1984) had isolated any virus in connection with AIDS. Based on this the Bundestag safeguarded the persistent lie of the AIDS information campaign (RKI) from 9th March 1995 about the successful isolation of a virus in connection with AIDS. As a consequence of non-tolerating this lie and because of non-tolerating the deadly consequences of this lie, the trial took place on 15th January 2001." \*\* except, of course, that there’s numerous more publications, which you happily ignore, and that the German parliament is prohibited by constitution to interfere with academic teaching. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I guess you can’t lump “AIDS deniers” and holocaust deniers together anymore, since holocaust denial is also illegal in Germany. \*\* I rather guess you’re citing material from elsewhere you neither checked nor understand. Coincidentally, the alleged petition number in question is also used by opponents of immunization as an alleged document connected with the harmfulness of immunizations. The actual trial you talk about is frequently reported as Ns 70 Js 878/99 14(XVII) K 11/00 Likewise, others use the same trial as ‘evidence’ of there no being a BSE agent. Aside from that, the claim that a virus needs to be isolated for antibodies to be generated is **complete and utter bullsh\*t** What is needed is a peptide sequence from an exterior virus protein. A protein is enough. Nobody needs a virus. > [@](#): > > \*\* > To Bosda and others: I am a chemist and biochemist by training, I am not homophobic and have been, over the years, an avid user of recreational drugs. I didn’t like Duesburg’s hypothesis when I first read it, but after reading it, was convinced that the science behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis was not sound. \*\* Chemist and biochemist by what training? What papers have you published? What other texts? (Dissertations etc). Your conduct in this post was unworthy of any academic degree whatsoever. You didn’t even bother to verify your own ‘evidence’ -you didn’t even think it through! (Otherwise you would have wondered why a district court would deal with a federal petition). I ask you again: Do you want me to go to the court and ask them for details on the case? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/173 "2003-09-08T19:52:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > That there is a consensus is only half the relevant information. The question is what it is built on, and what evidence the dissenters have for their ideas. Of course. But the half happens to be the one I’m commenting on. I don’t know anything about the other half. Testy, [The HIV-AIDS Debate Is Over](http://www.hivnewsline.com/issues/Vol3Issue1/editorial.html) (from 1997) > [@](#): > > In a singularly sensational and reckless response to this furor, a 65-year-old Florida clinician actually inserted a syringe into the finger of an AIDS patient and then injected himself with the same syringe—to emphasize his conviction that HIV infection does not cause AIDS (19). In the same vein, Duesberg himself once proposed to let Robert Gallo inoculate him with HIV. That Duesberg never went through with this publicity-generating ploy leads one to wonder if he has reservations about his own theory. [DOCTOR PUTS WIDELY DISPUTED AIDS VIEW ON DISPLAY](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rwcharlotteobs.htm) > [@](#): > > Before a gathering of about 30 alternative-medicine practitioners and several journalists, Willner stuck a needle in the finger of Andres Almandoz, 27, a Fort Lauderdale student who says he has tested positive for HIV. Then, wincing, the 65-year-old doctor stuck himself. See also [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=90351). Apparently I erred in saying that the guy was doing well - he died of a heart attack a couple of years after his injection (we need another volunteer - anyone out there?). But what I was remembering was this: > [@](#): > > The majority of AIDS researchers and public health officials scoff at such statements, and several said that Willner’s eye- catching act would prove nothing about HIV one way or the other. Studies of intravenous drug users and health care workers who have accidentally stuck themselves with HIV-contaminated needles suggest that Willner has a less than one-third of one percent chance of actually becoming infected from his dramatic demonstration. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/174 "2003-09-08T20:15:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\* > Pathetic. **"true"skeptic** , you’re an out-and-out loon. But hey, we can at least say thank you - it’s people like you that keep **Cecil** in business. > \*\* I awlays love self-appointed “true” skeptics who style themselves as Mavericks and attack HIV-AIDS/Evolution/The Holocost. [#40 on the woowoo credo.](http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html) Someone oughta tell these folks that there’s a big difference between being an iconoclast and being a jerk boucing off a windmill. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/175 "2003-09-08T21:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Question: Did you read the original articles? How do you know the criticism you cite is actually valid? … > > You see, the problem is that we’re talking about papers in peer reviewed journals, i.e. deemed to be either reasonably accurate, or at least warranting discussion. Since Gallo’s pronouncement that HIV causes AIDS **was not peer reviewed** , what do you think of that? How some journals “work” (or don’t) - [DUESBERG AND THE RIGHT OF REPLY ACCORDING TO MADDOX-NATURE](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdmaddox.htm): "Duesberg sent a letter to Nature arguing that the perfect correlation between drug use and AIDS confirmed, rather than refuted, the drug hypothesis. **Maddox censored the letter and wrote an editorial “Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?”** (Maddox, 1993). The editorial pointed out that the world’s oldest science journal **could not afford an open scientific debate on the cause of AIDS because of the perceived dangers of infectious AIDS.** "In an editorial on January 19, 1995, Maddox promised to lift the censorship to give “Duesberg and his associates an opportunity to comment” on two Nature studies that in his opinion prove the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. “In the following **we document how Maddox-Nature honors its commitments** … [see site for illuminating look at how science, er, works …]” Are these peer reviewed journals? I’m just a po’ layman. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papdimitriou JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/ Technology 1993;11:696-707. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine [Australia] 1993;5:113-123. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology (1995) 11, 135-143 - Review - AIDS in Africa: distinguishing fact and fiction E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1) Valendar F.Turner (2) John M. Papadimitriou (3) Harvey Bialy (4) P.H. Duesberg, ‘Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens Expectations and Reality’ Cancer Research 1 March 1987, vol.47, pp.1199-1220. (section about HIV and AIDS) P. Duesberg, ‘A challenge to the AIDS establishment’ Bio/Technology Nov. 1987, vol.5 p.1244. P.H. Duesberg, ‘HIV and AIDS: Correlation but not causation’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA Feb. 1989, vol.86 pp.755-764. (part one of trilogy) P. Duesberg, ‘AIDS: Non-infectious deficiencies acquired by drug consumption and other risk factors’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.5-11. P.H. Duesberg, ‘AIDS epidemiology; Inconsistencies with HIV and with infectious disease’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA Feb. 1991, vol.88 pp.1575-1579. (part two of trilogy) P. H. Duesberg, ‘Can alternative hypotheses survive in this era of megaprojects?’ The Scientist 8 July 1991. P.H. Duesberg, ‘The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS’ Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapeutics Jan. 1992, vol.46 pp.3-15. (part three of trilogy) P.H Duesberg & J.R. Schwartz, ‘Latent viruses and mutated oncgenes: No evidence for pathogenicity’ Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 1992, vol.43 pp.135-204. (section about HIV and AIDS) P.H. Duesberg, ‘AIDS aquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors’ Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1992, vol.55 pp.201-277. (Duesberg’s ‘opus magnus’) P.H. Duesberg, ‘The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics’ Bio/Technology 11 Aug. 1993. P. Duesberg, ‘The enigma of slow viruses’ (book review) The Lancet 18 Sept. 1993, vol.342 p.729. P. Duesberg, ‘Infectious AIDS; Stretching the germ theory beyond its limits’ International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 1994, vol.103 pp.118-126. P. Duesberg, ‘Duesberg on AIDS; The culprit is noncontagious risk factors’ The Scientist 20 March 1995, vol.9 p.12-. P.H. Duesberg, ‘Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.51-70. D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, ‘The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy’ Genetica 1995, vol.95 pp.103-109. B.J. Ellison, A.B. Downey, P.H. Duesberg, ‘HIV as a surrogate marker for drug use: a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men’s Health Study’ Genetica 1995, vol.95 pp.165-171. P. Duesberg, ‘HIV is not the cause of AIDS’ Science 29 July 1988, vol.241 pp.514. P. Duesberg, ‘Does HIV cause AIDS’ Journal of AIDS 1989, vol.2 pp.514-515. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, ‘Reappraisal of AIDS; Is the oxidation induced by risk factors the primary cause?’ Medical Hypothesis 1988, vol. 25 pp.151-162. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, B. Hedland-Thomas, D.A. Causer & A.P. Dufty, ‘An alternative explanation for the radiosensitization of AIDS patients’ (letter) Int. Jour. Radiation Oncology Biol. Physics. 1989, vol.17 pp.695-697. V.F. Turner, ‘Reducing agents and AIDS - why are we waiting?’ (letter) The Medical Journal of Australia 15 Oct. 1990, vol.153 p.502. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, B. Hedland-Thomas, D.A. Causer, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Changes in thiols and glutamate as consequence of SIV infection’ (letter) The Lancet 19 Oct. 1991, vol.338 p.1013. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Kaposie sarcoma and HIV’ Medical Hypothesis 1992, vol.39 pp.22-29. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1992, vol.143 pp.145-148. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Is a western blot proof of HIV infection?’ Bio/Technology 11 June 1993, vol.11 pp.696-707. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?’ Emergency Medicine 1993, vol.5 pp.71-147. V. F. Turner, ‘HIV western blot test’ (letter) The Medical Journal of Australia, 20 June 1994, vol.160 pp.807,808. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, D. Causer, B. Hedland-Thomas and B. Page, ‘A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.5-24. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou & D. Causer, ‘Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.25-50. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou & H. Bialy, ‘AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing fact and fiction’ World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology March 1995, vol.11 pp.135-143. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou, G. Stewart & D. Causer ‘HIV Antibodies: Further questions and a plea for clarification’ Current Medical Research and Opinion 1997, vol.13 pp.627-634. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J. M. Papadimitriou, D. Causer & B. Page ‘HIV Antibody Tests and Viral Load - More Unanswered Questions and a Further Plea for Clarification’ Current Medical Research and Opinion 1998, vol.14 pp.185-186. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Do we know the cause(s) of AIDS ?’ Perspectives in Biology and Medicine Summer 1990, vol.33 pp.480-500. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Non-HIV immunosuppressive factors in AIDS: A multifactorial, synergistic theory of AIDS aetiology’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.815-838. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS and Kaposi sarcoma pre-1979’ (letter) The Lancet 21 Apr. 1990, vol.335 p.969. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Is HIV the cause of AIDS?’ (letter) Policy Review Fall 1990. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Multiple-antigen-mediated autoimmunity (MAMA) in AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.321-339. R.S. Root-Bernstein & S.H. Hobbs, ‘Homologies between mycoplasma adhesion peptide, CD4 and class II MHC proteins: A possible mechanism for HIV-mycoplasma synergism in AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.142 pp.827-841. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS Dementia; misplaced blame?’ (letter) Science News 31 Aug. 1991. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘HIV and immunosuppressive cofactors in AIDS’ EOS - Journal of Immunol. Immunopharm. 1992, vol.12 pp.256-62. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS is more than HIV’ Genetic Engineering News 1992, vol.12 no.13 pp.4-6; no.14 pp.4,5. R.S. Root-Bernstein & S.H. Hobbs ‘Does HIV “piggyback” on CD4-like surface proteins of sperm, viruses, and bacteria? Implications for co-transmission, cellular tropism and the induction of autoimmunity in AIDS’ Journal of Theoretical Biology 1993, vol.160 pp.249-264. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Agenda for US AIDS research is due for a complete overhaul’ The Scientist 4 April 1994. R.S. Root-Bernstein ,‘CD4 similarity to proteins of infectious agents in AIDS and their role in autoimmunity.’ Medical Hypothesis 1994, vol.43 pp.361-371. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘The Duesberg Phenonemon: What does it mean?’ (letter) Science 13 Jan. 1995, vol.2674 p.159. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Five myths about AIDS that have misdirected research and treatment’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.111-132. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Preliminary evidence for idiotype-antiidiotype immune complexes cross-reactive with lymphocyte antigens in AIDS and lupus.’ Medical Hypothesis 1995, vol.44 pp.20-27. R.S. Root-Bernstein, S. Hobbs de Witt, ‘Semen alloantigens and lymphocytotoxic antibodies in AIDS and ICL’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.133-156. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Dental and research transmission of acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Or, is there any evidence that human immunodeficiency virus is sufficient to cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome?’ Med Hypotheses Aug. 1996 vol. 47 pp.117-22. R.S. Root-Bernstein et al., The necessity of cofactors in the pathogenesis of AIDS: a mathematical model. J Theor Biol. 7 July 1997 vol. 187 pp.135-46. G.T. Stewart, ‘Uncertainties about AIDS and HIV’ Lancet 336; 1325, 1989 G.T. Stewart, ‘AIDS: Differences within the UK’ In Commun. Dis (Scotland) AIDS Supp 90/33, 1, 1990 G.T. Stewart, ‘AIDS in the UK: Estimates of differences by risk-group denominators’ Ibid 91/24, 1, 1991 G.T. Stewart, ‘Epidemiology and Transmission of AIDS’ In Soc Pub Hlth, Official Handbook, 19-24, 1992 G.T. Stewart, ‘Changing the Case-Definition of AIDS’ Lancet 340; 1414, 1992 G.T. Stewart, ‘Errors in Predictions of the Incidence and Distribution of AIDS’ Lancet 341; 898, 1993 etc., etc. > [@](#): > > Your dissenters don’t just claim that the original author is wrong, they claim that all the reviewers are wrong, too. Based on the above, it seems you would have to do the same. > [@](#): > > And you decide to believe one over the other based on what? The fact that you’d like them to be right. And there’s the crucial difference. I only follow where the facts lead. I don’t **prefer** them to be right, because it would mean that billions of dollars and perhaps thousands of lives have been wasted. But let’s look at vice versa: every single researcher living on the AIDS dole now **does** need HIV-AIDS to be right … not just for the money, but for their conscience (and even personal safety). Hmmmm … which do you think would be more objective …? > [@](#): > > Totally aside from that, your entire argumentation continues to ignore the fact that the genome of HIV has been decoded, that the proteins it codes for are thus known, and that their individual structure has been determined in numerous cases. But your claims are the very claims in dispute. Since the isolation procedures use and produce contaminated material, and HIV has not been isolated, how could its genome be decoded? If the genome has been decoded, why is there still no gol ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/176 "2003-09-08T21:51:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*Question: Did you read the original articles? How do you know the criticism you cite is actually valid? … > > You see, the problem is that we’re talking about papers in peer reviewed journals, i.e. deemed to be either reasonably accurate, or at least warranting discussion. Since Gallo’s pronouncement that HIV causes AIDS **was not peer reviewed** , what do you think of that? How some journals “work” (or don’t) - [DUESBERG AND THE RIGHT OF REPLY ACCORDING TO MADDOX-NATURE](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdmaddox.htm): "Duesberg sent a letter to Nature arguing that the perfect correlation between drug use and AIDS confirmed, rather than refuted, the drug hypothesis. **Maddox censored the letter and wrote an editorial “Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?”** (Maddox, 1993). The editorial pointed out that the world’s oldest science journal **could not afford an open scientific debate on the cause of AIDS because of the perceived dangers of infectious AIDS.** "In an editorial on January 19, 1995, Maddox promised to lift the censorship to give “Duesberg and his associates an opportunity to comment” on two Nature studies that in his opinion prove the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. “In the following **we document how Maddox-Nature honors its commitments** … [see site for illuminating look at how science, er, works …]” Are these peer reviewed journals? I’m just a po’ layman. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papdimitriou JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof of HIV Infection? Bio/ Technology 1993;11:696-707. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM. Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS? Emergency Medicine [Australia] 1993;5:113-123. World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology (1995) 11, 135-143 - Review - AIDS in Africa: distinguishing fact and fiction E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos (1) Valendar F.Turner (2) John M. Papadimitriou (3) Harvey Bialy (4) P.H. Duesberg, ‘Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens Expectations and Reality’ Cancer Research 1 March 1987, vol.47, pp.1199-1220. (section about HIV and AIDS) P. Duesberg, ‘A challenge to the AIDS establishment’ Bio/Technology Nov. 1987, vol.5 p.1244. P.H. Duesberg, ‘HIV and AIDS: Correlation but not causation’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA Feb. 1989, vol.86 pp.755-764. (part one of trilogy) P. Duesberg, ‘AIDS: Non-infectious deficiencies acquired by drug consumption and other risk factors’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.5-11. P.H. Duesberg, ‘AIDS epidemiology; Inconsistencies with HIV and with infectious disease’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA Feb. 1991, vol.88 pp.1575-1579. (part two of trilogy) P. H. Duesberg, ‘Can alternative hypotheses survive in this era of megaprojects?’ The Scientist 8 July 1991. P.H. Duesberg, ‘The role of drugs in the origin of AIDS’ Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapeutics Jan. 1992, vol.46 pp.3-15. (part three of trilogy) P.H Duesberg & J.R. Schwartz, ‘Latent viruses and mutated oncgenes: No evidence for pathogenicity’ Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 1992, vol.43 pp.135-204. (section about HIV and AIDS) P.H. Duesberg, ‘AIDS aquired by drug consumption and other noncontagious risk factors’ Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1992, vol.55 pp.201-277. (Duesberg’s ‘opus magnus’) P.H. Duesberg, ‘The HIV gap in national AIDS statistics’ Bio/Technology 11 Aug. 1993. P. Duesberg, ‘The enigma of slow viruses’ (book review) The Lancet 18 Sept. 1993, vol.342 p.729. P. Duesberg, ‘Infectious AIDS; Stretching the germ theory beyond its limits’ International Archives of Allergy and Immunology 1994, vol.103 pp.118-126. P. Duesberg, ‘Duesberg on AIDS; The culprit is noncontagious risk factors’ The Scientist 20 March 1995, vol.9 p.12-. P.H. Duesberg, ‘Foreign-protein-mediated immunodeficiency in hemophiliacs with and without HIV’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.51-70. D.T. Chiu, P.H. Duesberg, ‘The toxicity of azidothymidine (AZT) on human and animal cells in culture at concentrations used for antiviral therapy’ Genetica 1995, vol.95 pp.103-109. B.J. Ellison, A.B. Downey, P.H. Duesberg, ‘HIV as a surrogate marker for drug use: a re-analysis of the San Francisco Men’s Health Study’ Genetica 1995, vol.95 pp.165-171. P. Duesberg, ‘HIV is not the cause of AIDS’ Science 29 July 1988, vol.241 pp.514. P. Duesberg, ‘Does HIV cause AIDS’ Journal of AIDS 1989, vol.2 pp.514-515. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, ‘Reappraisal of AIDS; Is the oxidation induced by risk factors the primary cause?’ Medical Hypothesis 1988, vol. 25 pp.151-162. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, B. Hedland-Thomas, D.A. Causer & A.P. Dufty, ‘An alternative explanation for the radiosensitization of AIDS patients’ (letter) Int. Jour. Radiation Oncology Biol. Physics. 1989, vol.17 pp.695-697. V.F. Turner, ‘Reducing agents and AIDS - why are we waiting?’ (letter) The Medical Journal of Australia 15 Oct. 1990, vol.153 p.502. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, B. Hedland-Thomas, D.A. Causer, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Changes in thiols and glutamate as consequence of SIV infection’ (letter) The Lancet 19 Oct. 1991, vol.338 p.1013. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Kaposie sarcoma and HIV’ Medical Hypothesis 1992, vol.39 pp.22-29. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Oxidative stress, HIV and AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1992, vol.143 pp.145-148. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Is a western blot proof of HIV infection?’ Bio/Technology 11 June 1993, vol.11 pp.696-707. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, ‘Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?’ Emergency Medicine 1993, vol.5 pp.71-147. V. F. Turner, ‘HIV western blot test’ (letter) The Medical Journal of Australia, 20 June 1994, vol.160 pp.807,808. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner & J.M. Papadimitriou, D. Causer, B. Hedland-Thomas and B. Page, ‘A critical analysis of the HIV-T4-cell-AIDS hypothesis’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.5-24. E. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou & D. Causer, ‘Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their relationship’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.25-50. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou & H. Bialy, ‘AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing fact and fiction’ World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology March 1995, vol.11 pp.135-143. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J.M. Papadimitriou, G. Stewart & D. Causer ‘HIV Antibodies: Further questions and a plea for clarification’ Current Medical Research and Opinion 1997, vol.13 pp.627-634. E. Papadopoulos-Eleopulos, V.F. Turner, J. M. Papadimitriou, D. Causer & B. Page ‘HIV Antibody Tests and Viral Load - More Unanswered Questions and a Further Plea for Clarification’ Current Medical Research and Opinion 1998, vol.14 pp.185-186. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Do we know the cause(s) of AIDS ?’ Perspectives in Biology and Medicine Summer 1990, vol.33 pp.480-500. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Non-HIV immunosuppressive factors in AIDS: A multifactorial, synergistic theory of AIDS aetiology’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.815-838. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS and Kaposi sarcoma pre-1979’ (letter) The Lancet 21 Apr. 1990, vol.335 p.969. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Is HIV the cause of AIDS?’ (letter) Policy Review Fall 1990. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Multiple-antigen-mediated autoimmunity (MAMA) in AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.141 pp.321-339. R.S. Root-Bernstein & S.H. Hobbs, ‘Homologies between mycoplasma adhesion peptide, CD4 and class II MHC proteins: A possible mechanism for HIV-mycoplasma synergism in AIDS’ Research in Immunology 1990, vol.142 pp.827-841. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS Dementia; misplaced blame?’ (letter) Science News 31 Aug. 1991. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘HIV and immunosuppressive cofactors in AIDS’ EOS - Journal of Immunol. Immunopharm. 1992, vol.12 pp.256-62. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘AIDS is more than HIV’ Genetic Engineering News 1992, vol.12 no.13 pp.4-6; no.14 pp.4,5. R.S. Root-Bernstein & S.H. Hobbs ‘Does HIV “piggyback” on CD4-like surface proteins of sperm, viruses, and bacteria? Implications for co-transmission, cellular tropism and the induction of autoimmunity in AIDS’ Journal of Theoretical Biology 1993, vol.160 pp.249-264. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Agenda for US AIDS research is due for a complete overhaul’ The Scientist 4 April 1994. R.S. Root-Bernstein ,‘CD4 similarity to proteins of infectious agents in AIDS and their role in autoimmunity.’ Medical Hypothesis 1994, vol.43 pp.361-371. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘The Duesberg Phenonemon: What does it mean?’ (letter) Science 13 Jan. 1995, vol.2674 p.159. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Five myths about AIDS that have misdirected research and treatment’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.111-132. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Preliminary evidence for idiotype-antiidiotype immune complexes cross-reactive with lymphocyte antigens in AIDS and lupus.’ Medical Hypothesis 1995, vol.44 pp.20-27. R.S. Root-Bernstein, S. Hobbs de Witt, ‘Semen alloantigens and lymphocytotoxic antibodies in AIDS and ICL’ Genetica March 1995, vol.95 pp.133-156. R.S. Root-Bernstein, ‘Dental and research transmission of acquired immune deficiency syndrome? Or, is there any evidence that human immunodeficiency virus is sufficient to cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome?’ Med Hypotheses Aug. 1996 vol. 47 pp.117-22. R.S. Root-Bernstein et al., The necessity of cofactors in the pathogenesis of AIDS: a mathematical model. J Theor Biol. 7 July 1997 vol. 187 pp.135-46. G.T. Stewart, ‘Uncertainties about AIDS and HIV’ Lancet 336; 1325, 1989 G.T. Stewart, ‘AIDS: Differences within the UK’ In Commun. Dis (Scotland) AIDS Supp 90/33, 1, 1990 G.T. Stewart, ‘AIDS in the UK: Estimates of differences by risk-group denominators’ Ibid 91/24, 1, 1991 G.T. Stewart, ‘Epidemiology and Transmission of AIDS’ In Soc Pub Hlth, Official Handbook, 19-24, 1992 G.T. Stewart, ‘Changing the Case-Definition of AIDS’ Lancet 340; 1414, 1992 G.T. Stewart, ‘Errors in Predictions of the Incidence and Distribution of AIDS’ Lancet 341; 898, 1993 etc., etc. > [@](#): > > Your dissenters don’t just claim that the original author is wrong, they claim that all the reviewers are wrong, too. Based on the above, it seems you would have to do the same. > [@](#): > > And you decide to believe one over the other based on what? The fact that you’d like them to be right. And there’s the crucial difference. I only follow where the facts lead. I don’t **prefer** them to be right, because it would mean that billions of dollars and perhaps thousands of lives have been wasted. But let’s look at vice versa: every single researcher living on the AIDS dole now **does** need HIV-AIDS to be right … not just for the money, but for their conscience (and even personal safety). Hmmmm … which do you think would be more objective …? > [@](#): > > Totally aside from that, your entire argumentation continues to ignore the fact that the genome of HIV has been decoded, that the proteins it codes for are thus known, and that their individual structure has been determined in numerous cases. But your claims are the very claims in dispute. Since the isolation procedures use and produce contaminated material, and HIV has not been isolated, how could its genome be decoded? If the genome has been decoded, why is there still no gol ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/177 "2003-09-08T22:04:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*Fucking brilliant. And to see it rebutted with this: > > Pathetic. **"true"skeptic** , you’re an out-and-out loon. But hey, we can at least say thank you - it’s people like you that keep **Cecil** in business. > > Esprix \*\* Thanks for your insightful, objective, and thoughtful reply. You are a credit to the many believers of the HIV-AIDS theory. The many good points you’ve made can only further fruitful discussion of this important topic. ---
**Author:** ![trueskeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7ba0ec/32.png) [@trueskeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/trueskeptic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/178 "2003-09-08T22:07:43Z")
(contd. from prev post) (Sorry for duplicates, I got error messages the first time I posted … so I tried again) > [@](#): > > Totally aside from that, your entire argumentation continues to ignore the fact that the genome of HIV has been decoded, that the proteins it codes for are thus known, and that their individual structure has been determined in numerous cases. But your claims are the very claims in dispute. Since the isolation procedures use and produce contaminated material, and HIV has not been isolated, how could its genome be decoded? If the genome has been decoded, why is there still no gold standard for testing? Unless, of course, you want to postulate a tiny conspiracy of totally unrelated researchers across the globe desperately trying to sabotage their own careers. Go over to [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=12171](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=12171) and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=10902](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/framik.cgi?db=genome&gi=10902) and come back and tell us you’re looking at fabrications. The data has been independently verified numerous times (cf. e.g. [http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/1/152?view=full&pmid=9847317](http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/73/1/152?view=full&pmid=9847317) )… ) [/QUOTE] Nice pictures. However the third link > [@](#): > > For the entire genome, the mean intersubject sequence diversity among these six clones was 5.6% (range, 2.8 to 9.0%), while the mean difference between these isolates and the Ethiopian subtype C reference clone C2220 was 9.4% (range, 8.8 to 11.3%) seems to underscore [the following:](http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ffsearch.htm) > [@](#): > > "The research group from Perth (69) notes that if an unique AIDS retrovirus existed, then **less than 1% genomic differences should be the rule, not the exception**. For instance, the type 3 Sabin poliovirus vaccine differed from its neurovirulent progenitor at only 10 nucleotide positions after 53 in vitro and 21 in vivo passages in monkey tissues. … > > "Let us see what is the picture offered by HIV research. Not long afterwards it was discovered that “If you were to test two HIVpositive people at random and analyse the genetic material of their strains, they would differ, on average, **by about 13 percent”** (70). Besides what is considered to be the genotype of HIV comes from sequence analysis of subgenomes that HIV genotype consignments are derived from sequence analysis of subgenomes measuring 2% to 30% of the total (71). The data is that such “genomes” vary between 3-40% (72,73). **“If 30% of the HIV genome varies as much as 40%, how much does 100% of the HIV genome vary?** This is the legitimate question of Eleopulos and colleagues (69). [69) Eleni Papadopulos Eleopulos, Valendar F Turner, John M Papadimitriou, David Causer. The isolation of HIV - has it really been achieved? Continuum Sept/Oct 1996; 4(3) S:1-24. > > 1. Brown P. The strains of the HIV war. New Scientist 1991; (25th May):14-15. > > 2. Salimen MO, Carr JK, Burke DS, et al. Genotyping of HIV-1. The human retroviruses and AIDS Compendium on Line: Web site: [http://hiv-web.lanl.gov](http://hiv-web.lanl.gov). USA: US Government, 1996: 30-34. > > 3. Zhu T, Wang N, Carr A, et al. Evidence or coinfection of multiple strains of human immuodeficiency virus type 1 B an acute seroconvertor. J Virol 1995; 69:1324-1327. > > 4. Kozal MJ, Shah N, Shen N, et al. Extensive polymorphisms observed in HIV-1 clade B protease gene using high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nat Med 1996; 2:753-759. > > 5. Gallo R, Wong-Staal F, Montagnier L, Haseltine WA, Yoshida M. HIV/HTLV gene nomenclature. Nature 1988; 333:504. > > 6. Lazo PA, Tsichlis PN. Biology and pathogenesis of retroviruses. Semin Oncol 1990; 17:269-294. > > 7. Cunningham AL, Dwyer DE, Mills J, et al. Structure and function of HIV. Med J Aust 1996; 164:161-173. > > 8. Barré-Sinoussi F. HIV as the cause of AIDS. Lancet 1996; 348:31-35.] > > Among researchers there is disagreement also about the number of HIV genes. In 1988 they said HIV genome had eight genes (74), in 1990 ten (75). In 1996 Montagnier referred that HIV had eight genes (76), and according to Barré-Sinoussi, HIV has nine genes (77) Not even the number of nucleotides of HIV genome seems to be constant (69) Perhaps these problems - of isolation and just which sequence (length, etc) is representative - have been resolved? (Although you may think they’re deluded, it would be decent to let these people know they’re living in the past, and would they please retract their papers.) ---
**Author:** ![Roger\_Mexico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f6c823/32.png) [@Roger\_Mexico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roger_Mexico)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/179 "2003-09-08T22:11:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OliverH \* > \*\*I can assure you, it is not. > You don’t think you can construct meaningful sentences? Why should a district court be concerned with a petition? Do you want me to walk over to the district court and give you the detailed ins and outs of the case, if it even exists? You see, it happens to be about half an hour on foot from where I am sitting. > > I rather guess you’re citing material from elsewhere you neither checked nor understand. Coincidentally, the alleged petition number in question is also used by opponents of immunization as an alleged document connected with the harmfulness of immunizations. The actual trial you talk about is frequently reported as Ns 70 Js 878/99 14(XVII) K 11/00 Likewise, others use the same trial as ‘evidence’ of there no being a BSE agent. > Aside from that, the claim that a virus needs to be isolated for antibodies to be generated is **complete and utter bullsh\*t** > What is needed is a peptide sequence from an exterior virus protein. A protein is enough. Nobody needs a virus. > > I ask you again: Do you want me to go to the court and ask them for details on the case? \*\* I obviously didn’t write the article I posted. I guess you missed the quotation marks. It is obviously a bad translation, so what? I did try to verify the case, but all the other references to it were in German or Italian. I am also not an expert in the German legal system, so I have no idea what court procedures are. So yes, please go to the court and inform us of the details of the case, it will make fascinating reading. A virus does need to be isolated to create a gold standard for an antibody assay. If you use a virus coat protein without isolating the virus, how do you know that the protein came from the virus? Which protein are you going to use, p24? It may interest you to know that 43% of dogs have been found to be positive for p24: Strandstrom HV, Higgins JR, Mossie K, et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Cancer Res 1990; 50: 5628s-5630s. I apologize if my rigourous training in chemistry has made me skeptical of the sort of hand-waving that passes for science in the world of AIDS. You see, in chemistry, you actually have to isolate something to prove it exists. Quoting from Giraldo’s article: [http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/EveryoneTestsPositive.html](http://www.robertogiraldo.com/eng/papers/EveryoneTestsPositive.html) "The only proper way for establishing the sensitivity and specificity of a given test is with a gold standard. However, since HIV has never been isolated as an independent purified viral entity(17-19), there cannot be a gold standard for HIV. The sensitivity and specificity of the antibody tests for HIV have instead been defined based on the assumption that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In this way, “The Abbott studies show that: Sensitivity based on an assumed 100% prevalence of HIV-1 antibody in AIDS patients is estimated to be 100% (144 patients tested)” and “Specificity based on an assumed zero prevalence of HIV-1 in random donors is estimated to be 99.9% (4777 random donors tested)” (1). “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood. Therefore sensitivity was computed based on the clinical diagnosis of AIDS and specificity based on random donors.” More discussion of problems with HIV assays: [http://healtoronto.com/annex/keyquestions.html](http://healtoronto.com/annex/keyquestions.html) > **[News | South African | African | International | Videos](https://www.polity.org.za)** > > Polity.org.za offers a unique take on news, with a focus on political, legal, economic and social issues in South Africa and Africa, as well as international affairs. Polity strives to provide our readers reliable and objective reporting on important... And you think my conduct is unscientific? That is rather bizarre considering that many of the posters on this discussion have resorted to calling me and trueskeptic "life-hating, truth-hating, science-hating, intellectual-integrity lacking, homophobic, moralistic, loons, etc. etc. when we don’t automatically accept the dubious claims of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403/180 "2003-09-08T22:13:58Z")
That’s right - _because all the scientists are wrong!_ :eek: ( :rolleyes: ) Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiv-test-bogus-says-pcr-inventor/199403.md?page=10)