In a scientific debate, where a given theory is being criticized on
highly specific and well defined grounds, and its defenders resort to
generalizations and vagueness, the odds are that its the defenders who
are wrong. Take that darn debate over whether HIV exists, for example.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos has criticized the HIV theory on many grounds,
among them that the allegedly retroviral particles seen in EM pictures
of density gradients do not have the right shape for retrovirus
particles, are not the right size for retroviral particles, and don't
have the all-important knobs which they need to actually be infectious
(http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html). That's specific.

Now look at the sort of things Perth Group critic Brian Foley is saying
in the BMJ debate: "The virus particles in those EMs look like HIV-1 or
any other lentivirus to me. Whether or not they contain ³all² of the
morphological characteristics attributed to HIV-1 depends on what list
of characteristics you are referring to. I would not expect the envelope
glycoprotein spikes often seen on virus as it is budding from cells
[8,9,10 for examples] to always survive untracentifugation, for example."
(http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/elett...7387/495#59478)

That's vague and general, not to mention subjective: "they look like
that to me." And it doesn't actually address a single point, except for
those knobs, and there his criticism has a too-convenient aspect to it:
The spikes/knobs don't always survive ultracentifugation? Do they indeed
ever survive ultracentifugation? If not, is it just as likely they were
never there in the first place? His asking which list of characteristics
the Perth Group is refering to shows that he has not really bothered to
familiarize himself with their arguments, or else doesn't really want to
understand them, or doesn't really want to respond to them.

So does the fact that he feels the need to grandly inform them of the
existence of two papers (the one by Gluschankof et al published in
Virology Mar 31;230(1):125-33 PMID: 9126268 and the one by Bess et al
published in Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44. PMID: 9126269) that
the Perth Group have been aware of for years, and which are referred to
in the interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos. So who is being misleading
here? Look at the manner in which this debate is being conducted and you
get a pretty good idea pretty quickly of which side is doing the evading.

On Sun, 16 May 2004 02:13:22 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

snip...
Once again, you are distorting. One needs to know the conditions under
which the EM was done. And then on top of that, it is not relying on
an EM alone as the sole source of evidence. There are scads of other
techniques that are employed. These satisfactorily identify viruses.
Whether HIV, the coronavirus that causes SARS, West Nile virus, etc.
Of course, perhaps all these viruses don't exist either?

George M. Carter

Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

The following paper:

http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-...Gelderblom.pdf

explains:

---QUOTE---
Virus aging and comparative aspects:
=============================
Because of weak SU-TM interactions, the viral knobs are shed
spontaneously from the viral surface (Gelderblom et al. 1985b 25 ).
For HIV-1 strain IIIB a shedding half-life of 30 hours was determined.
This rate easily explains the rapid decay of viral infectivity of IIIB
---END QUOTE---

I think this answers the complaint of the Perth dissidents that
electron micrographs of particles claimed to be HIV particles often
lack the expected knobs.

Peter

PS
The following email correspondence took place between me and a
supporter of the HIV theory several years ago. To get a clearer idea
of the status of HIV research it is worth visiting a library to look
at original scientific papers.

Me:
Response:
You have apparently only been looking at the photos
that the "dissidents" or "denialists" feed you. If you
go to the very same papers that the dissidents cite, and
read them, you will find that the dissidents show just
the very worst of the photos in those papers. For
example http://healtoronto.com/emphotos.html shows the
photo of the MN uncloned strain of HIV grown on H9
cells which resulted in a p24 (HIV protein) to HLA (human
contaminating protein) ratio of 0.02 to 1. Bess also
presented another photo of a slightly more pure preparation
with a ratio of 4.61 to 1, and indeed in that photo
there are roughly five times as many virus particles as
microvessicles. Bess did not show the photo of the better
preparations with ratios of up 10 150 to 1 that he was
able to get with cell lines other than H9 (the Daudi cell
line for example), but he would send you a photo if you
wanted one.

Bess JW Jr, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE,
Arthur LO.
Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular
proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations.
Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44.
PMID: 9126269

http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-...Gelderblom.pdf

has photos, but none of them are of gradient-enriched HIV.

Me:
Response:
Figure 2 there just shows little dots, so it is hard to say
what you mean by "similar quality". There are many photos
here:
http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVretro.html

Me:
Response:
No. I think the 150:1 ratio that Bess reported on is about as
good as it gets. That is one of the major reasons that ELISA
and Western Blot reagents are no longer prepared from whole
virus preps, but instead are made from cloned viral genes.

Have you really read those two papers in full? Or did you
just look at the one photo posted to the HEAL www site?

If you think that photographs of viruses are the be-all and
end-all of virology, you are missing some major points. For
one thing, HIV-1 and other retroviruses are "enveloped" viruses
which means that they take a chunk of the host cell membrane
out of the cell when they leave and thus even a 100% pure virus
preparation contains the host cell membrane proteins as well
as proteins encoded by the viral genome.

The "Perth group" of denialists would like to convince you that
photos of viruses are the most important thing in virology. But
in fact, all lentiviruses look identical, and you can't tell
the difference between HIV-1 and EIAV in a photo, let alone
determine the difference between the HIV-1 and HIV-2 or the
difference beteen HIV-1 subtype A and HIV-1 subtype B. With
infectious molecular clones of HIV-1 or any other virus, it
is possible to do all sorts of biology that could never be done
with just "gradient enriched" viral preparations.

In article <adgea0ht3bl0l39ms1kr3hkatljvki9heh@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

Why do I bother? Can't you see what's gone wrong here? People like Foley
are just making fools of themselves because they can't respond to the
Perth Group's arguments. Seriously. If Foley could do that, he wouldn't
be trying to tell them about papers they already know about and in fact
draw upon for their arguments as though they somehow refuted them.

And note that Foley isn't saying something like, "these papers show this
and that, as you should know, since you comment on them yourselves." No.
He mentions them as though he thought he was informing the Perth Group
of their existence for the first time. Which shows that he simply hasn't
bothered to study their arguments carefully, an elementary requirement
for anyone who wants to criticise them. He's low grade material.

In article <40a8f8e6.12624265@news.optusnet.com.au>,
no.spam@please (Peter) wrote:

It might. It might not. It sounds like speculation, although I really
don't know. Is there a more recent paper than one from 1985? And do
those weak SU-TM interactions also change the size and shape of the
particles away from those typical of retroviruses?

I have had to struggle to work out what to believe without
understanding all the details.

The sentences I quoted,


refer to a paper written in 1985, but the quote itself is from:

http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-...Gelderblom.pdf

which was written in 1997.

Hope this helps.

By the way, if the theory that HIV causes AIDS was some kind of
capitalist drug company conspiracy, I would expect the health
departments of countries such as China and Cuba to be resisting the
theory, but this is not the case.

Cuba in fact has been segregating HIV positive people, to protect
their sexually liberated life style.

Regards,
Peter

In article <uislad-F65D23.20411418052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
Perhaps it is not the Perth Group that he is trying to inform.

If the other readers see reports of observational evidence that
convince them, and see the Perth Group reject them without satisfactory
reasons, most will decide that the Perth Group are just cranks, and
that the Perth Group's rejection of evidence for HIV is not evidence
against HIV.

--
David Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when
correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in
the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the
world send me e-mail?"

In article <40aa2eac.1916046@news.optusnet.com.au>,
no.spam@please (Peter) wrote:

I think you are pretty naive in your views about the governments of
China and Cuba. Your suggestion as to why the Cuban government has
segregated the HIV positive is not one I have come across before.

In article <c8e9rh$cfk$1@remulak.uwaterloo.ca>,
dmcanzi@remulak.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) wrote:

Yes, I think it is the Perth Group he is trying to 'inform.' He is after
all having a 'debate' with them. The Perth Group's reasons for rejecting
the existence of HIV are on record. It is not, as they say, a matter of
rejecting evidence, but of interpreting evidence differently. Their view
is that nothing that is held to be evidence for HIV is acceptable as
proof of a virus, since there are non-viral explanations in each case.

Furthermore, the particles that are held to be HIV don't even look like
a virus. Brian Foley shows that he does not know what he is talking
about when he claims that the Perth Group are misleading their readers
about EM pictures of HIV when he refers them to two papers about the
subject, the sort of papers he claims they ignore - but these are the
very same papers that they use to show that HIV particles don't look
like a virus! This is an embarrassing, absolutely elementary error that
no one who had bothered to read the Perth Group's papers would make.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:41:14 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

snip
Ah--apparently they DON'T know about those papers. Or if they do, the
Perth group fails to address their meaning. Let alone the fact that
there are multiple ways to identify a virus!

LOL...I would say the same of you for making such a lame argument. The
Perth group sadly does not appear able to respond to any of Foley's
arguments.

George M. Carter

In article <ku6ma09q2vn6kd3ec53ugvcjkp5lbl07jo@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

The Perth Group agree that there are other ways of isolating viruses,
but argue that none work for HIV. And you're quite wrong that it's the
Perth Group who 'fail to address the meaning' of those papers. Read
again Christine Johnson's interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos, where
she gives very clear and very specific reasons why it is open to
question that the particles described in those papers are a retrovirus,
and compare that to Foley's lame evasion on the same point. "They look
that way to me" just isn't an argument; how could anyone think it was?

I have to conclude that you want to believe in the HIV theory of AIDS no
matter what. You're attached to that theory for emotional reasons of
your own. It takes away some of the blame and the responsibility for
being HIV positive or having AIDS. It's like gay people who insist that
they were 'born gay' even though the evidence for that is very meagre.

Lame argument? Why is it lame?

It clearly matters a great deal to Brian Foley that he succeed in
showing that the Perth Group are misleading people about EM pictures of
HIV. Too bad he couldn't even be bothered reading their papers, because
anyone who has would know that the person who is being misleading is him.

Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:


that impression.

to take action, and by now they would know whether the segregated HIV
positives went on to develope AIDS or not.
Presumably recreational drugs would not be available to these people,
and HIV drugs were probably not (initially) available either, so if
the immune systems of the infected people declined, it would have to
be due to HIV.

I have not seen reports from Cuba to this effect, but if it had been
found that after being segregated, non of the HIV positive people had
become ill, then I expect we would have heard about it.

It may be possible to find some information with Google.

Regards,
Peter

no.spam@please (Peter) wrote in message news:<40ab67ad.9785078@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Hansen H, Groce N.
MSJAMA. Human immunodeficiency virus and quarantine in Cuba.
JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290(21):2875.
PMID: 14657076

"...In 1994, the quarantine was officially lifted. However,
by 2003, half of all HIV-positive Cubans still lived in the
sanatoriums..."

Swanson JM, Gill AE, Wald K, Swanson KA.
Comprehensive care and the sanatoria: Cuba's response to HIV/AIDS.
J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 1995 Jan-Feb;6(1):33-41.
PMID: 7734720

http://www.cubaaidsproject.com/ The Cuba AIDS Project

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/011.html Cuba's "patient #1" died
of AIDS in 1995

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~josep...Barksdale.html Medical Students
for Cuba

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr02-cu-00 Cuban AIDS Deaths in 2001: 120

http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACL533.pdf A PDF file of Cuba AIDS Data

In article <40ab67ad.9785078@news.optusnet.com.au>,
no.spam@please (Peter) wrote:

China supported General Pinochet in Chile.

Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message news:<uislad-775645.21191319052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
What other ways of isolating viruses do they agree on, and where
exactly have they stated that they agree on these other methods?

Yeah, and monkey's have wings. This is what she said:

"CJ: Tell me, the few particles they say are HIV, do they look like a retrovirus?

EPE: They bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles."

Foley says they look like virus particles, Papadopulos-Eleopulos says
they bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles. Foley
points out that one of the Bess et al photos shows nearly pure virus
(figure 3 center panel) in (1), Papadopulos-Eleopulos tries to mislead
people into thinking that only the top panel of figure 3 exists in (1).

1: Bess JW Jr, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO.
Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins
found in purified HIV-1 preparations.
Virology. 1997 Mar 31;230(1):134-44.

And I suppose you have more than "meagre" evidence that people
choose to be gay??? What is this substantial evidence? Care to
show it to us?


Becuase it has nothing but lies and empty rhetoric to back it up.
Go get the Bess paper from the local libary and look at the photos
yourself.

What, exactly, convinces you that Foley is wrong and Papadopulos-Eleopulos
right on this point?

In article <b82db7cf.0405200942.3d69eb9c@posting.google.com>,
drpsduke@yahoo.com (Dr. Phillip S. Duke) wrote:

It's all in the BMJ debate. You have the link.

And this pure virus looks like a virus, specifically a retrovirus? Yes
or no? Does it or does it not have those knobs? If it does, why does
Foley not say so rather than resort to vagueness and generalizations and
fudging? For that matter, being a doctor, why don't you enter the BMJ
debate and argue the matter with Papadopulos-Eleopulos yourself?

I wasn't trying to say that homosexuality was a choice. Being gay
myself, I am well aware that it isn't a choice. It so happens that the
notorious Freudian theory of homosexuality according to which it's all
about your too-close mother and your distant father fits me perfectly. I
therefore believe that theory, and so would you if you were in my shoes.

That means that although homosexuality isn't a "choice", you still have
much more responsibility in how you deal with it than you would if it
had purely biological causes. You can, for example, read Freud and try
to understand the psychological forces behind your homosexuality, or
else you can remain ignorant and pretend that there is no issue. If you
dare confront those forces - which takes great courage to do because
it's so deeply disturbing and painful - that may alter your sexual
feelings to a greater or lesser extent, though there are no guarantees.

Personally, my own sexuality has shifted somewhat in the heterosexual
direction. I am sexually aroused by/interested in women, which wasn't
true before. I have not stopped being interested in men, though. It
might be true that I could Œgo straight¹ and abandon homosexuality
totally if I tried hard enough, but I have no particular wish to do so.

What does this have to do with AIDS? The rhetoric surrounding AIDS
sounds extremely similar to the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality.
These are both issues where gay activists have vested interests and are
therefore absolutely unwilling to permit open debate. The censorious
declarations about how other points of view are "homophobic" and
therefore not to be tolerated is precisely the same in both cases.
Anyone who dissents from the standard view can expect to be vilified, as
psychiatrist Robert Spitzer was when he conducted a study with 'ex-gays.'

The scientific issues are also similar to some extent. We know what
genetic determinism has meant to the study of homosexuality. Compare
what it has meant to AIDS
(http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slartefact.htm).

I was concerned with one particular point, a point no one needs to be a
scientist to appreciate. Mr. Foley claims that the Perth Group have
tried to convince people that there are very few EM pictures of HIV. He
then mentions two papers describing such pictures, papers that the Perth
Group commented on several years ago. This makes him look like a fool.

The point here is only whether or not the Perth Group are aware of the
existence of these papers and have called people's attention to them
(which they have), not their interpretation.

In article <uislad-2B0420.14413119052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:
When I first posted that it was merely a hunch. FWIW, I have received
email from Foley confirming this hunch.

No telepathy was involved. I myself have done the same thing.
I have argued with intransigent people in a public forum in order to
show the audience that the intransigent arguers would believe what
they believe no matter what was actually the case and, therefore,
that their disbelief of an idea was not evidence against that idea.

It's a blunder on Foley's part if the Perth Group are not misleading
readers about the papers they cite. Foley is confident enough that
he is encouraging readers to check. You, on the other hand, seem to
be trying to discourage people from checking. Hmmm.

--
David Canzi The problem most anti-spammers are trying to solve, when
correctly understood, reduces to "How do I let everybody in
the world send me e-mail without letting everybody in the
world send me e-mail?"

Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote in message news:<uislad-23C33E.13271621052004@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
It looks like a lintivirus. Most retroviruses have a more sperical
core, lentiviruses have a cone-shaped core.

If there are any knobs, they do not show up clearly in the
Bess photograph.

I don't know, why don't you ask Foley?

Probably the same reasons you don't.

"Debate" is just hot air. People can debate these things for
dozens of centuries with no conclusions. The alternative is
to try to apply the scientific method. This is easier done
with HIV than with homosexuality.

Clever rhetoric. It sounds good if you ignore all the serological
evidence, DNA sequence evidence, and epidemiology. If Gallo's and
Montagnier's groups had ONLY a photograph and some RT activity, then
they might indeed have been wrong.

The Perth Group said:
"(c) In the only EM of "purified" "HIV" published to date the vast
majority of the material is microvesicles,..."

That is a bold lie. There have been hundreds of EMs of HIV published,
and more than 10 of them have been photos from bands collected at
1.16 g/ml in sucrose gradients. One of the ones in the Bess paper
shows the vast majority being HIV-1 particles with very little
cellular vessicles. Why, exactly, does Foley look like a fool
for pointing out this lie?

OK. Yes, the Perth Group is aware of the papers and willing to
lie about the content of the papers. Foley is willing to point
out the lie.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 19:23:57 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

Really? I know that Maggie Thatcher enjoyed engaging in metaphorical
anolingual activities with him.

In article <qcaua0t5jaacpn0hkr9g7gnel1d6jjrv3k@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

Yes, really. Look it up. It's in "Mao for Beginners", among other fine
books.