Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and
Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award
1978:

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing
evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has
been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter
to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000)

Dr Sänger is exactly right. The most that the original LAV group did was to
find a peak of reverse transcriptase (RT) activity at a band density of
1.16g/ml from assumed-to-be infected culture. This was their "proof of
isolation of a retrovirus".

Retroviruses exhibit RT activity and have a band density of 1.16g/ml.
However so do a lot of things: including cell material under mitogenic
conditions (the conditions of culture used by both Montaigner and Gallo's
groups.)

The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were established at the Pasteur
Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for
establishing the independent existence of an infectious virion. They are:

a) Culture of putatively infected tissue.
b) Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation and
follow-up techniques.
c) Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological
characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of retroviral particles at the
sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else: no
particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
d) Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
e) Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are
unique.
f) Proof that steps a) to e) are a property only of putatively infected
tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical
cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and
cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not
putatively infected with a retrovirus.
g) Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles
are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical
particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps a) to e).

At least one member of the LAV team (Barre-Sinoussi) took part in the
process of drawing up these rules. But these rules were not fulfilled for
the "LAV virus". Step a) and half of step d) are not enough. Detection of
reverse transcription activity in the T cell cultures of AIDS patients is
not by itself proof that there is a retrovirus in those cultures.

There was some supporting evidence for G&Ms claims of isolation, which on
closer inspection proved to be no evidence at all. Gallo and Montagnier
indeed detected retroviral-like particles (i.e. of proximately correct
dimensions) in their cell cultures. But they didn’t identify
retroviral-like particles in isolates from the 1.16mg/l band: they simply
pointed to particles in impure cell cultures and asserted that not only
were they retroviruses, but that they were a specific retrovirus: one that
was causing pathology in AIDs patients.

However retroviral-like particles that are actually cellular in origin are
ubiquitous in cultures, especially when cultures are subjected to the
mitogenic conditions that Gallo and Montagnier used. Therefore, the
identification of look-alike particles in impure cell cultures does not
prove that those particles were in fact a retrovirus, much less a specific
infectious retrovirus.

Additionally Gallo and Montagnier identified certain proteins in their
cultures as "HIV proteins". These "HIV proteins" were then used to test
for HIV antibodies. Unfortunately, Gallo and Montagnier identified
proteins in their cultures as HIV proteins simply because these proteins
reacted with antibodies from AIDS patients, and not from non-AIDS
patients. Unfortunately, because the AIDS patients had a high level of
circulating antibodies - much higher than in normal, healthy individuals -
this meant that AIDS patients were likely to have antibody cross-reactions
with any particular protein more frequently than non-AIDS patients.
Therefore, the identification of certain proteins as HIV proteins, simply
because they reacted with antibodies of AIDS patients and not non-AIDS
patients is nonsensicial.

Note that high blood protein is not unusual in ill people. Ineed people
under some form of immune or catabolic stress tend to have a lot more more
proteins in their blood: this in fact was the basis of the non-specific
ESR test that was once used as a pregnancy test.

Gallo and Montagnier's three pieces of evidence (reverse transcription
activity, the identification of retroviral-like particles in impure cell
cultures, and the identification of "HIV proteins" simply on the basis of
antibody reactions) were the ONLY pieces of evidence they had in support
of their claims to have isolated a retrovirus from their patients’
cultures. These bits of evidence are not enough.

In summary: there was no isolation of virus. This invalidates the HIV
tests and all results drawn from them. This also invalidates experimental
and prognostic tracking of supposed HIV RNA. Most of all it raises the
question: why have we been talking about a virus at all?

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:03:21 -0400, "agere_contra" <address@withheld>
wrote:

So why does even your denialist buddy Duesberg admit that HIV has been
isolated?

George M. Carter

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, agere_contra wrote:

You don't think that sometime in the last 23 years someone might have
actually addressed these issues? Hmm?

Try a pubmed search ;-)

Bennett

No, these issues have not been addressed in the last 23 years, in the sense
that no-one has managed to isolate HIV where Montaignier and Gallo failed.
The existance and pathology of HIV have been *asserted* for those 23 years
but have not been *proven*. This came as a shock to me too.

-----------------

"So why does even your denialist buddy Duesberg admit that HIV has been
isolated?"

The short answer to the question is that he doesn't.

Professor Duesberg apparently no longer believes that the evidence for
isolation of a particle (virus or not) is valid. He is reported as saying
that the genetic sequence "isolated" by the Pasteur institute is "not a
cause of illness, is nothing more than human, and is insufficient to be
defined as endo or exogenous". He said that it would be more honest to
call it, for example, "genetic sequence 2,000,001xy", but, not in any way
"virus" or "immune deficiency cause" as indicated by the name HIV.

The above is my gloss of a reported interview between Duesberg and Mark
Griffiths. To my knowledge the interview is not in print - so those who
wish to clarify the Professor's views should email him from his website.

As to why Herr Duesberg ever seemed to endorse the existence of HIV ...
again you would have to ask him. He got into enough trouble just for
questioning the pathology of HIV. Certainly non-proof of virus is where
the debate now is: prove isolation, and then we can examine pathology.

Though he is cited as "my denialist buddy" I don't know Professor Duesberg
personally. I would however be happy to know him. The man has sand.

That is very interesting information some of which I wasn't aware of -
but you really need to cite sources if you want to influence people on
this forum - otherwise you're just "preaching to the converted" - and
the unconverted.
In other words people will go on believing what they already believed
unless ideas are very strongly backed up.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:31:27 -0400, "agere_contra" <address@withheld>
wrote:

Your report is intriguing but unconfirmed.

If I cared that much about his opinion, I'd ask. Maybe one of the
denialists here can trot over and get a statement from him!

George M. Carter