From: Pat Fallon (pfallon@ptd.net)
Date: Sat Mar 09 2002 - 21:41:35 MST
>> Pat Fallon
> >You can't put the cart before the horse. Somebody first has to isolate
the
> >candidate virus, prove that it is present in sufficient numbers to cause
the
> >symptoms in the affected cells, characterize the proteins and genetic
> >material, reinfect host cultures, see increased numbers, reisolate and
> >compare the proteins and genetic material.
> Damien Broderick
> You do know, BTW, that HIV genomes have been sequenced already?
> See http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/mainpage.html
> http://hiv-web.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/HTML/FAQ.html
Thank you for the links. I can be convinced of something without being
committed to it, and am thus always willing to reconsider my conclusions.
Yes, I am aware that it is claimed that HIV genomes have been sequenced.
However, upon first review I don't think those links address the major
concern The Perth Group has raised.
Unquestionably, by molecular cloning one can obtain large amounts of
"purified" DNA, but equally unquestionable is the fact that molecular
cloning tells you nothing about the origin of a particular DNA molecule.
To sequence "the HIV genome" one must know beforehand that a particular DNA
is the HIV genome. In other words, one must start with "HIV RNA" which can
be obtained only by prior purification of particles proven to be retroviral
particles. Since it is argued that this has not been achieved, then what is
the origin of the DNA fragment which is known as the "HIV genome" which is
routinely cloned in labs?
This is how I understand the genetic information of HIV was manufactured, as
Dr. Stephan Lanka has described:
[begin Lanka quote]
Since no virus has been isolated, it follows that no nucleic acid has been
isolated from it either. Complicated procedures are, nonetheless, described
in the literature, at the end of which something is produced which is called
the nucleic acid of HIV.
1. In a tube....
HIV and its DNA can allegedly be made by the "bucketful", but under very
surprising conditions which, inter alia, entail the use of extracts from
plants and other oxidising chemicals, which could not possibly exist in
vivo. Immortalised cell lines devised (and later patented) by the Montagnier
and Gallo groups are co-cultured with extracts from human cells or the cells
themselves. At the end of it all HIV itself is not actually obtained only
reverse transcriptase activity is shown to occur which is taken to imply
that the DNA that is found, must have been viral in origin. The real
explanation of what happens is as follows. In the mixture of cell cultures
and stressed human cells, RNA and reverse transcriptase come to be produced
in large amounts, because the cells have been specially selected and treated
to do this. The RNA is transcribed into DNA by reverse
transcriptase, and long pieces of DNA are produced which are said to be
viral DNA. In fact they are composed of unrelated pieces of expressed
cellular RNA, transcribed into DNA and linked together by a process of
"template switching" (a well-characterised property of reverse
transcriptase). This misleads ordinary researchers into believing that they
have actually produced viral DNA. It is said that this linear DNA is the
free or the non-integrated form of HIV, which furthermore is said to be a
unique feature of HIV, because a lot of detectable free linear DNA has not
been suggested in any other models of retroviruses.
2. Through selecting processes....
The resulting pieces of DNA too, are necessarily both shorter and longer
than the "correct" length of HIV. Pieces corresponding to the "correct"
length of HIV must be selected for size, because otherwise the purported DNA
preparation would be a mixture of various lengths, which would violate a
cardinal rule of virology that all nucleic acid of a particular virus be
identical in size.
3. Through a detecting process....
Having artificially prepared DNA pieces of uniform length, they are still
not ready for presentation, because they consist of a mixture of all kinds
of RNA fragments transcribed into DNA and thus cannot be shown to represent
unique viral DNA. Accordingly, the mixture is subjected to a kind of
key-and-lock detection process called hybridisation, whereby pieces of DNA
are detected which complement more or less a probe of that which it is
desired to be shown to have been prepared.
4. Choosing a desired probe....
Since no DNA from HIV existed to hybridise with the prepared DNA, Gallo and
Montagnier simply used stretches of DNA from what they said was specific to
HTLV-I, a retrovirus Gallo had earlier claimed to have discovered, and which
they deemed suitable for this purpose. The DNA detected in this way was
replicated and certain stretches of it cloned and declared to be the DNA of
HTLV-III (later to be called HIV).
To summarise, the purpose of the exercise is to grow HIV, but it actually
produces a mixture of different lengths of DNA, contrary to theory which
says they should all be identical, and no virus at all. It is then claimed
that the "correct" DNA has been prepared by finding certain strands in this
heterogeneous mix by hybridising them with an HTLV-I DNA probe whose
sequence is known and defined also to be HIV. However, non-hybridising
strands of DNA should not be there at all, and the fact that they are,
proves that a complete rag-bag of DNA has been prepared, without any
indication of what it is made up of.
It follows that "HIV" DNA must just be a laboratory artefact constructed to
a preconceived idea of what retroviral DNA should be, and this assessment
does not even raise the question why no virus can be obtained, whatever the
experimental conditions.
Gallo and Montagnier's cloned HIV DNA
After defining some segments of DNA to be "HIV"-specific, every researcher
in the field worked exclusively with short, cloned sequences (never the
whole strand) on the reasonable assumption that the original
characterisation had been correctly performed. From the isolation and
identification procedure described above, it follows that the resultant
sequences vary widely from one preparation to the next, which sequence
analysts misinterpreted as the legendary capacity of HIV to mutate.
[end Lanka quote]
Maybe I'm missing something, but IF HIV has not been isolated, then I don't
see how it can be claimed that the HIV genome has been sequenced.
An electron micrograph of a proper viral isolate would end all reasonable
doubt. Montagnier claimed he had "isolated" HIV in 1983. When Montagnier
was asked in July 1997 by French Journalist Djamel Tahi why such photos were
not published, his answer was because, even after "Roman effort", they could
see no particles with "morphology typical of retroviruses. I repeat we did
not purify..."[http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm]
Also in 1997 the leading science journal Virology published two papers that
provided stunning new data on the "isolation" of HIV.[ 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.]
For the first time, electron microscope images of "HIV" banded at the
density required for retroviruses were published. They revealed "major
contaminants" in "pure HIV", consisting of an excess of vesicles - particles
of cellular proteins.
HIV expert Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute, whose photos
of non-banded 'HIV' material have been the industrial benchmark since 1987,
co-authored the first paper which describes the contamination as "an excess
of vesicles" - particles of cellular proteins, that may contain DNA or RNA.
In a consecutive paper, a US research team from the AIDS Vaccine Programme
in Maryland reveal carefully, "It is unknown how these cellular proteins
associate with the virus" and warn, "The presence of microvesicles in
purified retroviruses has practical implications".
Yes, I would say so! And if something purported to be "pure HIV" was
revealed to contain "major contaminants", I would argue it is time to stop
calling it "purified retrovirus". These articles reveal gross
contamination.
Both artcles discuss the resulting nonspecifity of HIV tests, all of which
are based on early unchecked "purified HIV".
While on the subject of HIV tests, I would like to direct attention to the
article attatched below. Most serologic tests that look for the presence of
antibodies against germs uses neat serum [undiluted]. For example, the tests
that look for antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses, rubella virus,
syphilis, hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of them, use
straight serum [undiluted]. However, to try to prevent false positive
reactions some serologic tests use diluted serum; for example this is the
case with tests that look for antibodies to measles, varicella and mumps
viruses which use a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20 and to
Epstein-Barr Virus [EBV] 1:10.
The ELISA test is a test for antibodies against what is supposed to be the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. To run this test, an individual.s serum
has to be diluted to a ratio of 1:400 with a special specimen diluent.
The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that the test serum
needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the individual.s
serum is not diluted?
Preliminary results are that every sample so far tested without dilution
tests positive. This seems paradoxical to the infectious HIV/AIDS model;
predicted by the Perth Groups model. The author discusses the implications
of this and suggests an experiment to further clarify matters.
Pat Fallon
---------------------------------------------
EVERYBODY REACTS POSITIVE ON THE ELISA TEST FOR HIV
By
Roberto A. Giraldo, MD
For the last 6 years I have been working at a laboratory
of clinical immunology in one of the most prestigious University Hospitals
in the City of New York. Here I have had the opportunity to personally run
and get to know in detail the current tests used for the diagnosis of HIV
status, namely, the ELISA, Western blot and Viral Load tests.
1. Diluting the serum for the ELISA test
The ELISA test is a test for antibodies against what is
supposed to be the Human Immunodeficiency Virus or HIV. To run this test, an
individual.s serum has to be diluted to a ratio of 1:400 with a special
specimen diluent. According to the test kit manufacturer this diluent
contains "0.1% triton X-100, Bovine and Goat Sera (minimum concentration of
5%) and Human T-Lymphocyte Lysate (minimum titer 1:7500). Preservative: 0.1%
Sodium Azide" (1).
This extraordinarily high dilution of the person.s serum
[400 times] took me by surprise. Most serologic tests that look for the
presence of antibodies against germs uses neat serum [undiluted]. For
example, the tests that look for antibodies to hepatitis A and B viruses,
rubella virus, syphilis, hystoplasma and cryptococus, to mention a few of
them, use straight serum [undiluted]. However, to try to prevent false
positive reactions some serologic tests use diluted serum; for example this
is the case with tests that look for antibodies to measles, varicella and
mumps viruses which use a dilution of 1:16, to cytomegalovirus [CMV] 1:20
and to Epstein-Barr Virus [EBV] 1:10.
The obvious questions are: What makes HIV so unique that
the test serum needs to be diluted 400 times? And what would happen if the
individual.s serum is not diluted ?
2. Testing the ELISA test without diluting the serum
To answer these questions I ran an experiment in a medical
laboratory in Yorktown Heights, New York. I ran it using the same test kit
reagents that are usually used to run the ELISA test in most clinical
laboratories worldwide (1).
I first took samples of blood that, at 1:400 dilution,
tested negative for antibodies to HIV. I then ran the exact same serum
samples through the test again, but this time without diluting them. Tested
straight, they all came positive.
Since that time I have run about 100 specimens and have
always gotten the same result. I even ran my own blood which at 1:400 reacts
negative. At 1:1 [undiluted] it reacted positive. I should mention that with
the exception of my own blood, the patient samples all came from doctors who
requested HIV tests. It is therefore likely that most of the blood samples
that I tested belonged to individuals at risk for AIDS.
According to Abbott Laboratories, the absorbance value
[yellow color intensity] "develops in proportion to the amount of antibodies
to HIV-1 which is bound to the bead" (1). What I noticed is that the
absorbance values of the specimens that tested negative when diluted
[1:400], but positive when undiluted [1:1], had lower values that the
samples that, diluted, react positive on both the ELISA and Western blot
tests. This would probably mean that the blood that is negative when diluted
but positive when undiluted has a lower level of antibodies than the diluted
blood that is doubly positive and, therefore, may probably test negative on
the Western blot test. However, I have not had the opportunity to check this
hypothesis.
It is important to note that the Western blot antibody
test for "HIV" also needs serum to be diluted. Although it too has an
unusually high dilution, here the individual serum is only diluted at a
ratio of 1:50 (2). I have not yet had the opportunity to run this test with
undiluted [1:1] specimens.
3. Discussion
The following are three possible explanations for why
undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:
3.1. Everybody has HIV antibodies.
It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV
detects antibodies against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(3-6). And the pharmaceutical company that commercializes the ELISA
kits states that "Abbott
HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an in vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the
Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in
Human Serum and Plasma" (1).
Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the
ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results
presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And
this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens.
This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the
virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react
positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the
highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people - the ones
that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1] - would have had a lower
level of exposure to HIV.
3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection.
It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts
positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is
infected with a deadly virus that causes immunedeficiency (3-6). Therefore,
the positive reactions of all undiluted serums would mean that everybody, or
at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, are
infected with this "deadly" virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio
of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of "deadly" infection than the
"deadly" infection had by the ones that only react positive with undiluted
serum.
3.3. The test is not specific for HIV.
The results presented here could also mean that the tests
used for detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been
explained previously (7-14). In this case, there would be reasons other than
HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts positive to
it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV (7-14).
The scientific literature has documented more than 70
different reasons for getting a positive reaction other than past or present
infection with HIV (7,10,11,14,15). All these conditions have in common a
history of polyantigenic stimulations (15,16).
Even Abbott Laboratories is well aware of the specificity
problems with the ELISA test. This is why they state: "EIA testing alone
cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of
reactive specimens suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV-1 is
present" and "Although for all clinical and public health applications of
the EIA both the degree of risk for HIV-1 infection of the person studied
and the degree of reactivity of the serum may be of value in interpreting
the test, these correlations are imperfect.
Therefore, in most settings it is appropriate to
investigate repeatably reactive specimens by additional more specific or
supplemental tests" (1). Interestingly, there are countries like Great
Britain where the diagnosis of HIV status is based on the ELISA test alone.
No Western blot or any other test is needed there.
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" (1). [Emphasis is mine].
Since there is no scientific evidence that the ELISA test
is specific for HIV antibodies, a reactive ELISA test at any concentration
of the serum would mean presence of non-specific or polyspecific antibodies
(20). These antibodies could be present in all blood samples. They are most
likely a result of the stress response, having no relation to any
retrovirus, let alone HIV (21,22). In this case, a reactive test could be a
measure of the degree of one.s exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents
(15,16).
The inevitable conclusion is that all positive reactions
for antibodies to HIV are simply false positives. If nobody is positive for
HIV, then people who react positive on the ELISA test do so due to something
other than HIV.
4. Proposal to find out the real meaning of the "HIV
antibody" tests To uncover the meaning of these tests I propose a simple
experiment: Take blood from three groups of people and run the tests highly
diluted, undiluted and at a wide spectrum of dilutions in between. The first
group would be a group of healthy people of many age groups; the second
group would be a group of people from the conventional AIDS "risk groups";
the third group would be a group of people with clinical conditions both
related and unrelated to AIDS. All groups would be subjected to both the
ELISA and Western blot tests.
Additionally, all blood samples could be subjected to the
"the viral load test for HIV". The results of such an experiment could
determine whether these test measurements bear any relationship to an
individual.s level of exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents. If so, the
tests could be salvaged as a measure of an individual.s level of
intoxication.
Let us find the economic support necessary to run this
experiment. In the mean time, since people are reacting positive on tests
that are not specific for HIV, let's please stop labeling them as "HIV
positive".
5. Acknowledgments
I want to thank Mr. Albert Padovani, Director of Yorktown
Medical Laboratory for permitting me to run the experiments reported here in
his laboratory and for providing the reagents for the tests. Also I thank
Tom DiFerdinando Executive Director of Health Education AIDS Liaison (HEAL)
in New York City for editing the manuscript for this article and for his
valuable suggestions.
REFERENCES
1.ABBOTT LABORATORIES. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type
1.
HIVAB HIV-1 EIA. Abbott Laboratories, 66-8805/R5.
January 1997: 5.
2.EPITOPE ORGANON TEKNIKA. Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Type 1 (HIV-1). HIV-1 Western Blot Kit. PN201-3039
Revision # 6.
3.FEINBERG MA & VOLBERDING PA. Testing for Human
Immunodeficiency Virus. In: COHEN PT, SANDE MA and
VOLBERDING PA. The AIDS Knowledge Base. Boston:
Little, Brown
and Company, 1994: Section 2.
4.PINS MR, TERUYA J and STOWELL CP. Human
Immunodeficiency
Virus Testing and Case Definition: Pragmatic and
Technical Issues. In:
COTTON D and WATTS DH. The Medical Management of AIDS
in
Women. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997: 163-176.
5.METCALF JA, DAVEY RT and LANE HC. Acquired
Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Serologic and Virologic
Tests. In DEVITA
VT, CURRAN J, HELLMAN S, et al. AIDS: Etiology,
Diagnosis,
Treatment and Prevention. 4th Edition. Philadelphia:
Lippincott - Raven,
1997: 177-196.
6.WEISS SH. Laboratory Detection of Human Retroviral
Infections. In:
WORMSER GP. AIDS and Other Manifestations of HIV
Infection. New
York: Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 175-200.
7.PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E, TURNER V &
PAPADIMITRIOUS JM. Is a Positive Western Blot Proof
of HIV
Infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11:696-707.
8.PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E, TURNER V, PAPADIMITRIOU J
& CAUSER D. HIV Antibodies: Further Questions and a
Plea for
Clarification. Curr Med Res Opin 1997; 13:627-634.
9.HODGKINSON N. Science Fails the "AIDS Test" In: AIDS:
The Failure
of Contemporary Science. How a Virus that Never Was
Deceived the
World. London: Fourth Estate, 1996: 232-262.
10.JOHNSON C. Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV
Antibody
Test Results; Zenger.s San Diego, California,
September 1996a: 8-9.
11.JOHNSON C. Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway? Continuum
(London) September/October 1996b; 4(3):4-5.
12.TURNER VF. Do Antibody Tests Prove HIV Infection?
Interview by
Huw Christie Editor of Continuum. Continuum (London)
Winter 1997/8;
5(2):10-19.
13.SHENTON J. Positively False: Wrong Tests and Long-Term
Survivors.
In: Positively False: Exposing the Myths around HIV
and AIDS. London:
I.B. Tauris, 1998: 238-239.
14.GIRALDO RA. Milking the Market. Will Mothers Dish Out
the W.H.O.
Formula? Continuum (London) 1998; 5(4):8-10.
15.PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the
Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary
Cause? Medical
Hypothesis 1988; 25:151-162.
16.GIRALDO RA. AIDS and Stressors II: A Proposal for the
Pathogenesis
of AIDS. In: AIDS and Stressors. Medellín, Colombia:
Impresos Begón,
1997: 57-96.
17.PAPADOPULOS-ELEOPULOS E, TURNER V, PAPADIMITRIOU
JM & CAUSER D. The Isolation of HIV: Has it Really
Been Achieved?
The Case Against. Continuum (London) 1996;
4(3):S1-S24.
18.LANKA S. No Viral Identification: No Cloning as Proof
of Isolation.
Continuum (London) 1997; 4(5):31-33.
19.DE HARVEN E. Remarks on Methods for Retroviral
Isolation.
Continuum (London) 1998; 5(3):20-21.
20.WING MG. The Molecular Basis for a Polyspecific
Antibody. Clin Exp
Immunol 1995; 99:313-315.
21.SNYDER HW and FLEISSNER E. Specificity of Human
Antibodies to
Oncovirus Glycoproteins: Recognition of Antigen by
Natural Antibodies
Directed Against Carbohydrate Structures. Proc Nat
Acad Sci USA
1980; 77:1622-1626.
22.BARBACID M, BOLOGNESI d & AARONSON SA. Humans Have
Antibodies Capable of Recognizing Oncoviral
Glycoproteins:
Demonstration that These Antibodies are Formed in
Response to Cellular
Modification of Glycoproteins Rather than as
Consequence of Exposure
to Virus. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1980; 77:1627-1621.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:53 MST