Re: Re: Re: Re: Show me the photo please 25 June 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Christopher Tyler,

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Show me the photo please

Brian Foley wrote:
"Chris Noble did not say that they were EMs of HIV. He only asked Pennee if those photos would meet her criteria for retroviruses. They are EMs of HTLV- I."

On June 20th, 2004, Pennee Atkinson asked, 'why can’t you just humor us non-geneticists and show us a simple “GIF” (EM) photograph of HIV?'
Christopher Noble responded by posting several EM photographs of particles which clearly could not have been 'HIV'. Besides the obvious date of publication, the lack of gp120 spikes was a big clue. Strange considering there are many EM's claimed to be 'HIV' from cell cultures which contain spikes (at least temporarily). Why Christopher Noble would reference photos of HTLV-1 is odd.

Brian Foley wrote:
"Correct. That is what I have been attempting to convince the Perth group for several years now; that photographs of viruses are not very useful. It is difficult to tell one retrovirus from another by EM, and impossible to tell one lentivirus from another by EM."

The Perth Group has been saying for a very long time that seeing particles in cell cultures is, as Brian Foley says, 'difficult to tell one retrovirus from another' or even a retroviral-like particle from a retrovirus. BUT, as we have been trying to help Brian Foley understand, you CAN and SHOULD use EM photography to demonstrate that when a scientist claims 'purified' this is a factual, empirical statement. A reference to the Bess and Gluschankof papers is given based on the request for EM's of 'HIV' in density gradients. That this mystifying assumption not only belongs to Gallo, Montagnier and Levy but is apparently shared by other scientists is indicated in the Gluschankof paper:

'Virus to be used for biochemical and serological analyses or as an immunogen is frequently prepared by centrifugation through sucrose density gradients. The fractions containing viral antigen and/or infectivity are considered to contain a population of relatively pure viral particles."

Yet their EM's clearly show otherwise. It's understandable why Montagnier would say that even after a 'Roman effort' they couldn't find particles with the morphology of a retrovirus in their density gradients.

Brian Foley wrote:
"The gp120 part of the envelope protein is attached to the virus particle by very weak forces. Thus, ultracentrifugation tears the gp120 off from most of the viruses."

If the gp120 spikes, which are considered absolutely necessary for infectivity, are so labile, how could 'HIV' maintain infectivity after Factor VIII processing? To quote Gluschankof again, 'The fractions containing viral antigen and/or INFECTIVITY are considered to contain a population of relatively pure viral particles.'

Brian Foley wrote:
"HIV-1 viral loads in plasma would certainly not be considered to be high titer."
"If virus concentration is a major factor in this, then maybe 8,000 liters of human plasma is needed, instead of 80 liters."

It's again baffling how a retrovirus that is so sparse could be causing the damage attributed to it, especially when one considers the other extreme factors so many in the risk groups have been exposed. And to quote Peter Duesberg on the insanity of using drugs like AZT in context of this scenario, 'If you think about it, you give -- you put in a person making hundred thousands of new T cells every minute an inhibitor of DNA synthesis, because the virus needs DNA to be replicated, but the virus is 10 kilobases and the human cell is a million kilobases. You’re shooting with nuclear weapons at bunnies. Yes, you probably knock out a few bunnies. But the forest doesn't look very good after your hunt is over.'

Competing interests: None declared