Re: Re: A modest proposal 4 June 2003
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Jamie Mills,
Medical SHO
Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square Leicester LE1 5WW

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: A modest proposal

In response to Brian Foley's comments-

Did either Bess et al. or Gluschankof et al. approach 80% or even 98% purified virus, or what looks like purified virus?

Even with modern techniques of isolating pieces of DNA and viewing which proteins are produced, how is that proof of an exogenous and infective retrovirus?

If as both authors state that "contaminating microvesicles" contain both RNA and DNA, how can we be confident that what we currently know as the HIV genome is the HIV genome and not, in part at least, represented by the microsomal contents.

Also the current tests (ELISA) used by our local laboratories use proteins isolated from sucrose gradients,(as mentioned in accompanying leaflets), which by your own admission are not pure, and judging by the EM's produced are not approaching a reassusring margin of pure- whatever that may be. How do we then interpret positive "HIV" antibody tests when we do not know what the positive reaction is about? Microvesicle or "HIV" proteins.

If we then move on to western blots as a means of confirming a diagnosis, how many bands and which do you need to confirm a diagnosis? This varies considerably around the world and means a person may be HIV positive in Africa but hop on a plane and have the same test in Australia and be HIV negative! What does that mean for our patients?

Competing interests:   None declared