Department of Medical Physics, 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:
A paraphrased request and a question to Brian Foley
In his Rapid Response “Re: A QUESTION AND A REQUEST TO BRIAN FOLEY”, 13th May, Brian Foley wrote:
“The Perth group wrote:
Not all of the papers below [1-90] report on infectious molecular clones of HIV-1 or HIV-2. I have included a few papers reporting on infectious molecular clones of SIVs, SHIVs, BIV and FIV in order to illustrate that the techniques used in the study of HIVs are not unique to HIVs. I have also included papers which describe some molecular clones which are not infectious, or not fully replication-competent, such as the hybrids described in , in order to illustrate the fact that not just any DNA can produce fully competent virus”.
We did not ask for the titles of 90 studies. Especially studies conducted in HIV-2, SIVs, SHIVs, BIV and FIV. Neither for “HIV-1” studies which have no evidence for the existence of “infectious molecular clones”. Let us paraphrase our request: Would Brian Foley please give us a summary of the evidence (not just the title) of a study as well as the evidence from a few confirmatory studies where the existence of an “infectious molecular clone” (as defined by Brian Foley) of “HIV-1” has been proven.
Our request to Brian Foley is: Is it true that
(a) In 1983/85 Montagnier’s and Gallo’s groups claimed to have purified “HIV” and from this “purified” “HIV” to have obtained the “HIV” poly- (A) RNA, that is, the “HIV” genome (and thereby some of the best known and still most often used “HIV” molecular clones). But neither group published electron micrographs (EM) to confirm their purification;
(b) In 1997 Montagnier admitted that his group did not purify “HIV” and in his view neither did Gallo’s group. In fact Montagnier stated that they did not publish any EM because in the “purified” “HIV” they could not find any particles “with the morphology typical of retroviruses”;
(c) In the only EM of “purified” “HIV” published to date the vast majority of the material is microvesicles, that is, cellular fragments amongst which there are a small number of particles which the authors claim to be “HIV” but none of which has all the morphological characteristics attributed to “HIV”.
Yes or no?
Competing interests: None declared