Alexander H Russell,
Send response to journal:
Christopher Noble asked:
"How is it possible for the Perth Group to look at the same study and make such completely different conclusions? The study contradicts their assertions that PCR and antibody testing are both non-specific."
The Study assumes that 'HIV' is an isolated retrovirus. There is no such thing as 'HIV' antibdoy or PCR tests because there is no such isolated entity as 'HIV'.
Mr. Noble still naively believes that 'HIV' exists and thus gets fooled by these non-specific tests. As there is no such thing as 'HIV' all so-called 'HIV' testing procedures must be banned.
There will neve be an 'HIV' vaccine becuase the putative 'HIV' is not a sexually transmitted retrovirus but a misinterpreted epiphenomenon. What has wrongly been classified as 'HIV' is an excessive production of micro RNAs.
The taxonomic classification of 'HIV' (22-23 May, 1986) was ostensibly a political move and a strategic invention to present a nomenclature that would unify a diversely identified putative 'retrovirus': human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III ('HTLV-III'), immunodeficiency-associated virus ('IDAV'), aids-associated retrovirus ('ARV') and lymphadenopathy-associated virus ('LAV'). The not so hidden agenda behind this politically expedient move was to enforce the 'belief' that an alleged 'human retrovirus' caused 'immunodeficiency'.
Thus the manufacturing of 'HIV' hegemonic (misinformed) consent reinforced a 'retroviral' episteme for 'AIDS' causation. However, to date, 'HIV' has still not proved to be a human immuno-deficiency virus. If the function of a name is to designate its individuality, then clearly 'HIV' was a baptism by mistaken identity. The moment of fictional baptism was reported in Science (Harold Varmus et al., 9 May, 1986), in which eleven of the thirteen members of a subcommittee - ("empowered by the International Committee on the taxonomy of Viruses") - nominated 'HIV':
"We are writing to propose that the AIDS retroviruses be officially designated as the human immunodeficiency viruses, to be known in abbreviated form as HIV...The name is readily distinguished from all existing names for this group of viruses and has been chosen without regard to priority of discovery. The name is sufficiently distinct from the names of other retroviruses to imply an independent virus species...We hope that this proposal will be adopted rapidly by the research community working with the viruses."
This letter was followed by EDITOR'S NOTE: Myron Essex and Robert C. Gallo, who are also members of the Human Retrovirus Subcommittee, did not sign the above letter.
The same letter was also published in Nature (1st May, 1986) followed by a cautious Editor's note:
"An earlier version of this letter asked that journals publishing it should make use of the name HIV a condition for the publication of research articles. Nevertheless, Nature will continue its present practice of allowing its contributors to use whatever nomenclature seems to them appropriate..."
While the international sub-committee wanted all journals and scientific papers to refer to 'HTLV-III' as 'HIV', Gallo, who sat on the sub-committee, disagreed by refusing to sign the letter announcing the new name, and refused to call the virtual virus 'HIV' (New Scientist, 15 May, 1986). Gallo wanted the new name to be "human retrovirus" ('HRV'): the power of naming gives one kudos and control over the name.
Most committee members felt that 'HRV' was too "nonspecific". Joseph Palca ('Controversy over AIDS virus extends to name', Nature, News,1 May, 1986) reported that the name 'HIV' did not win hegemonic consent:
"But HIV never had unanimous support from Varmus's subcommittee. Nearly half of the members preferred the current compound name, HTLV- III/LAV. Others, including Gallo, Essex and Temin preferred human retrovirus (HRV)...Steve Gillis of Immunex Corporation at Seattle, Washington, who is familiar with controversies over new names from his own experience with lymphokines, questions whether a name that is not supported by Gallo can win general support. In addition to Gallo and Essex, a prominent AIDS researcher who asked not to be identified indicated that he would not use the new name."
Following the Gallo/Heckler paradigm by press conference announcement ("the probable cause of aids has been found") of April 23, 1984, The New York Times ('A Viral Competition over AIDS', April 26, 1984) was quick to spot the power-politics of naming referring to the old dispute between 'LAV' and 'HTLV-III': In the world of science, as among primitive societies, to be the namer of an object is to own it. While being the proud 'owner' of 'HTLV-III', opportunist Gallo did not rule out the possibility of switching to 'HIV' and soon fell into line:
"It's not that I hate the name. If it is accepted widely I would gravitate toward it." (Science, 9th May, 1986).
Max Essex objected to the name 'HIV' because he thought that it revealed "little or nothing about the nature of the virus and may even be confusing". (Science, 9 May, 1986).
Essex and Gallo also objected to the name 'HIV' because 'HTLV-III' and 'LAV' had been widely used both in the primary scientific literature and in the popular press: The terms are so thoroughly engrained in the literature that it may be impossible to change them in the minds of people who use them, Essex explained. (Science, 9 May, 1986).
There was no isolated evidence then (as now)that this material was a putative 'retrovirus' that caused 'immunodeficiency'. The acronym 'HIV' is misleading and meaningless. The Executive Committee of the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses should be charged under an appropriate jurisdiction for ratifying a fraudulent nomenclature. There is no 'gold standard' definition of 'HIV', as Eleopulos et al. state:
"There is no agreement on the precise taxonomic classification of HIV. Initially, HIV was reported as an Oncoviral type-C particle, then a type-D particle, and then as a member of a different Subfamily, a Lentivirus..."
('Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?', Eleni Eleopulos et al., Emergency Medicine, 1993).
The failed 'HIV' paradigm is over but Nature, Science, The Lancet and New Scientist still uncritically propagated the 'HIV' hypotheis simply to save face and to protect the multibillion dollar 'HIV' industries.
Mr. Noble should ask himself why no 'AIDS' scientist has ever won the Nobel Prize.
Competing interests: None declared