Re: What part of "infectious molecular clone" do you fail to understand? 4 April 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Biophysicist
Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, 6001,
Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso, Sam Mhlongo, Todd Miller, Christian Fiala

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: What part of "infectious molecular clone" do you fail to understand?

The Sabin Polio Virus Genome Variability and the Existence of “HIV”

 

In his rapid response of 26th March, Christopher Noble wrote: “There is no point in the Perth Group demanding "proof" if they are not capable of understanding the evidence or have no desire to do so.”

 

We have been asking for evidence which proves the existence of a unique retrovirus, “HIV”, said to be sexually transmitted.   So far Christopher Noble has failed to produce such evidence.

 

Christopher Noble wrote:  “What the Perth Group can do is provide some evidence for various claims that THEY have made.

They can start with "the genomes of the most variable RNA viruses do not differ by more than 1%"

The genomes of the three Sabin polio isolates have been sequenced. They differ from each other by much more than 1%. (1)

They cannot keep on avoiding these questions forever”.

 

Why is Christopher Noble “stuck” with 1%?   In our rapid response “Genomic Variability” (14th October 2003), we gave to Christopher Noble “in RNA viruses the nucleic acid “sequences differ by approximately 50%” and that the viruses “differ from each other by 81% at the amino acid level”.    But this does not add anything to the argument regarding the existence of “HIV”.    As we wrote: “The questions surrounding the existence of “HIV” are basic scientific questions which Christopher Noble refuses to address.”

 

Christopher Noble wrote: “What the Perth Group can do is provide some evidence for various claims that THEY have made.”

 

Would Christopher Noble please tell us which other claims we have made without providing evidence.   When he tells us, would he please also answer one of our basic questions that we put to him, namely, “Did Montagnier prove the existence of HIV?” (our rapid response of 4th November 2003).

 

 

Competing interests: None declared