Once again, the origin of the CK and RT cannot be determined by their "RELATIVE amounts" 25 October 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Biophysicist
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:
Re: Once again, the origin of the CK and RT cannot be determined by their "RELATIVE amounts"

Once again, the origin of the CK and RT cannot be determined by their "RELATIVE amounts"

In his rapid response: "Re: Repeat, the origin of the CK and RT activity", 11 October, Nicholas Bennett wrote: "They quote a series of caveats about CK that any houseman ought to know. This doesn't change a thing about the point I was making which was that if you look hard enough (e.g. CK isoenzyme) you can come to a conclusion about the source."

Nicholas Bennett has claimed that the origin of the CK activity can be determined by its "RELATIVE amount". We have no doubt that housemen know the caveats about CK we have quoted, and anybody who knows these facts will conclude that the origin of CK cannot be determined by its "RELATIVE amount".

Nicholas Bennett wrote: "The same thing applies to RT activity I ensured the reference explained this for the Perth Group, and having them quote it back to me, implying that I was somehow misrepresenting the contents, is laughable."

Nicholas Bennett talks repeatedly about what he is doing, but never gives us any references with evidence that the origin of the RT activity can be determined by its "RELATIVE amount".

Nicholas Bennett wrote: "I ask again, what explanation would the Perth Group offer me for an uninfected RT activity of 30 units and an infected activity of 1000 Units?"

If Nicholas Bennett gave us the history of the non-infected and "infected" cultures as well as the exact culture conditions we will respond.

Nicholas Bennett wrote: "There are various means to remove or inhibit the cellular RT-like activity, as well the Perth Group know. In his "isolation" paper Montagnier performed these controls and others have done so also. The experimental evidence far outweighs any theorising from the sidelines."

Would Nicholas Bennett please tell us what are the "various means" by which the "HIV" experts, including Montagnier and Gallo, use "to remove or inhibit the cellular RT-like activity".

We have repeatedly asked Nicholas Bennett to look at Montagnier's "isolation" paper and his 1984 paper on the characterisation of the "HIV" RT and tell us:

(i) is the sum of the RT activity by polymerase beta and gamma as high as that of "HIV";

(ii) are the conditions identical;

(iii) is it true that the only reason one of the 3 peaks of RT activity obtained in the "infected" cells with poly A oligo dT12-18 is claimed to be "HIV" RT is because the same peak "is also obtained with poly Cm oligo dG, a reverse transcriptase specific template-primer."

Nicholas Bennett did not respond.

Nicholas Bennett wrote: "Since the Perth Group have issued the invitation to refute them in formal print, I would be happy to do so"

We are eagerly waiting for Nicholas Bennett's "formal" rebuttal.

Competing interests: None declared