Department of Medical Physics, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia, 6001,
Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David
Send response to journal:
What are appropriate methodologies in retrovirology?
In his rapid response "Re: Retrovirologists, retroviruses and purification" (July 2nd) Brian Foley wrote:
"The Perth group
This is true, and everyone agrees with it. Where we disagree, is the exact methods by which one “proves” that the proteins are derived from viral particles".
Would Brian Foley please tell us what method he is going to use to prove the existence of a new retrovirus, its genome and proteins?
Brian Foley wrote: "The Perth Group wrote: "To claim that some of the proteins in the "purified" preparations were HIV proteins and some of the RNA, "HIV" RNA ("HIV genome"), defies not only scientific reasoning but commonsense.
No. You are wrong. Just because you fail to understand molecular biology, does not mean that it is not understandable".
The sentence which Brian Foley quotes from our rapid responses "Retrovirologists, retroviruses and purification" was preceded by the following: "We would never have imagined that a preparation which contained no retrovirus-like particles or which was "purified vesicles" (as Gluschankoff et al call their preparation) would be claimed and accepted, as being "purified" "HIV".
Would Brian Foley please tell us how, by using "molecular biology", he will prove the existence of "HIV" proteins and "HIV" RNA ("HIV" genome) in a preparation which has no particles with the morphological characteristics of retroviruses or in "purified vesicles"?
Competing interests: None declared