Re: Re: Still no proof for a correlation between the HIV PCR and antibody tests 14 February 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Murali Mohan C.G.,
n.a.
Bangalore,India

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Still no proof for a correlation between the HIV PCR and antibody tests

On February 11 2004 , Christopher Noble wrote, 1) "It is extremely obvious that it is impossible to "prove" anything to someone that will never accept any evidence that contradicts their dogmatic beliefs."

Well said.Perhaps this applies to the HIV-AIDS scientific community as well?

2)"Montagnier has not, directly or indirectly, admitted that he did not isolate HIV. This is purely your spin, your interpretation and your lies."

Going through the text of the video tape interview that Montagnier gave, one reads:

Djamel Tahi: "Why no purification (of the HIV ) ?"

Montagnier: "I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on."

Montagnier has clearly,directly, said that they did not purify the virus but rather passed it on ,explaining why it was done that way. Assuming that the source from which I obtained this interview text is authentic, I want to know what is 'purely the spin,misinterpretation,lies ' of the Perth group as Christopher Noble alleges.

3)"It should be obvious why the Perth Group have no influence in the scientific community."

I am amused at this one. Really, how important or relevant is a scientist's 'influence' in the scientific community? History is full of instances where scintists who were right were ignored and had little 'influence' until their views came to be accepted.Similarly, many 'influential' scientists have turned out to be wrong sometimes. Albert Einstein, perhaps the most respected and influential scientist of the last century refused to believe in Quantum Physics/Mechanics . Should the rest of the scientific community have followed him blindly?

Competing interests: None declared