Send response to journal:
"Montagnier never states that he had not isolated HIV on the contrary he directly states that he did."
Are the results of a researcher verified against what the scientist claims or what is shown by the research itself? Robert Gallo claimed HL23V was a retrovirus. Does this make it a real one? Montagnier's CLAIM to have isolated 'HIV' is irrelevant.
What the Spectra papers do, but what what neither Gallo nor Montagnier could do, was publish EM's of particles in the gradient to prove they had the possibility of a virus there. I find it ironic that Brian Foley accepts EM photographs of budding particles in a cell culture as a 'line of evidence', but EM's of the gradient are unnecessary when they come up negative.
In other words, if something that MIGHT be a retrovirus in a cell culture is present, EM can be used as a 'line of evidence', but if nothing is there (that is, a strike against your hypothesis), EM is unnecessary.
From the Tahi interview:
DT: Why do the EM photographs published by you, come from the culture and not from the purification? LM: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that.
"They have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and they have repeatedly misreported other scientists ie. "At least Montagnier in his 1997 interview to Djamel Tahi admitted that he had not isolated HIV and in his view neither had Gallo.""
This is not a mischaracterization.
DT: Why no purification? LM: I repeat we did not purify...
DT: Gallo did it? LM: Gallo? .. I don't know if he really purified. I don't believe so.
Isolation (purification) means to set apart from everything else not that thing, not detection of non-specific phenomenon (RT and/or antibody reactions).
Competing interests: None declared