According to the Fraser Institute's 2001 Economic Freedom of the World report (co-published by Cato), privatization has barely made a dent in state domination of the Zambian economy: State-owned enterprises remain prevalent and government investment tops 50 percent of total investment. Price controls are still widespread in manufacturing and agriculture. And inflation as of 1999 was 25 percent a year.
Meanwhile, according to the latest survey by the anti-corruption watchdog group Transparency International, Zambia ranks 75th out of 91 countries for its appalling levels of corruption.
The country is saddled with the legacy of decades of egregious misrule. Kaunda was a disaster for his country. He ran a brutal one-party state and looted his country, skimming off billions to put in personal offshore bank accounts. The country's immense mineral wealth was squandered by the gross mismanagement of state-owned enterprises. A reckless runup of debt left Zambia in hock up to its eyeballs. And, worst of all, since 85 percent of the country is employed in agriculture, price controls caused a steady decline in food production since independence.
After the copper boom ended, Zambia went into freefall: Per capita incomes declined nearly 5 percent annually between 1974 and 1990.
The current government is perhaps not as corrupt, but it will take time and FREE MARKET REFORMS for Zambia to ever grow to the point where it will be able to deal with its AIDS crisis.
1. Predictions of the spread of AIDS based on the HIV hypothesis are continually being readjusted.9 AIDS has not significantly spread beyond the original risk groups and there are many fewer cases of full-blown AIDS than anticipated. For this reason the 'latency period' has continuously been extended. It is now up to 10-15 years and still growing. This 'latency period' is a statistical product designed to reconcile the low incidence of AIDS with the relatively high level of HIV infection.6
2. The number of HIV carriers has remained constant at about 1 million since 1985 when the antibody test was initiated.5
3. There is not enough HIV in the bodies of PWAs to account for the billions of T-cells killed.7
4. HIV can hardly ever be isolated from patients with AIDS, suggesting that the body's natural vaccination process has occurred.7
5. Karposi's sarcoma has been found in many young male homosexuals who have never been infected by HIV. Even adherents of the HIV hypothesis now concede that KS is not caused by HIV. Nonetheless, this disease is diagnosed as 'AIDS' but only when the sufferer has antibodies to HIV.8
6. Other AIDS indicator diseases with T-cell depletion are found in individuals who do not have antibodies to HIV. In fact, all AIDS diseases have occurred in all risk groups in the absence of HIV or its antibodies since the beginning of the epidemic. HIV infection is thus not a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of AIDS - were it not for biased definition.7,8
7. Tests show that the number of HIV-infected T-cells remains the same no matter if you are asymptomatic or have full-blown AIDS. Any other viral infection would show a dramatic increase throughout the course of the disease.7
8. Although sexually transmitted diseases infect males and females equally, more than 90% of American AIDS sufferers are male. This is true even of health care workers who develop AIDS, although two-thirds of all US health care workers are female.6
9. The risk of getting AIDS for HIV-infected people varies tenfold with gender or country. In America, the annual AIDS risk of an HIV-infected person is currently 4%; in Africa it is 0.3%.6,7
10. HIV is spread primarily through homosexuals in the US and primarily through heterosexuals in Africa.7 This would suggest that AIDS is possibly a non-infectious disease.
11. So-called 'African AIDS' affects males and females equally, and also involves a different pattern of associated opportunistic infections. These differing patterns do not rescue the HIV hypothesis for American AIDS, but indicate that a single virus may not be responsible for the multitude of conditions diagnosed as AIDS in Africa and America.7
12. About three-fourths of the 20,000 US haemophiliacs were infected with HIV almost 10 years ago. According to the HIV hypothesis, at least half of those infected should have died by now—but the mortality rate among haemophiliacs has remained constant at 2% over the last 15 years.10
13. HIV is said to be a sexually transmitted virus, yet it is barely detectable in the semen of AIDS ...[Message truncated
I love the attempt to make it seem like there's more than one jackass who actually belives this nonsense, by the use of so many different handles.
Especially after recent posts have thoroughly refuted the inanity of this tripe.
What possible motivation could someone have to spread this nonsense other than garden variety mental illness.
Oh well, it is entertaining.
I just hope i didnt contract HIV/ AIDS during those years when i was a junkie. the years of my IV drug use......its kinda scary...
Dont worry folks, even if i did contract this horrible disease
I would never expect your sympathy and compassion.
I even if i was so sick that i couldnt take care of myself and lost everything---give me no compassion or help.
But then again, if i was in that situtation, i would probally think alot differently.
"I just hope i didnt contract HIV/ AIDS during those years when i was a junkie. the years of my IV drug use......its kinda scary...
Dont worry folks, even if i did contract this horrible disease
I would never expect your sympathy and compassion.
I even if i was so sick that i couldnt take care of myself and lost everything---give me no compassion or help.
But then again, if i was in that situtation, i would probally think alot differently."
I love it. Here I am defending those suffering from HIV/AIDS from some half wit jackass who's saying that they aren't even sick, and my doppelganger is trying to insult me.
I love it.
To even see my name is to send this ass into some fit of ninth grade rage.
LOL!
What an idiot!
Made an ass of yourself on that one buddy.
Does HIV Exist?
By Michael Coon
, who is an Immunologist currently working on mechanisms of T
effector cell differentiation with respect to their role in complications
arising from bone marrow transplant. In the HIV/AIDs arena, He worked for
many years on local AIDS community issues. and has worked professionally in
the HIV molecular epidemiology lab of Jim Mullins at Stanford U. and the
University of Washington.
It may come as a surprise to some people but there is a group of people who
maintain that HIV, the etiologic cause for AIDS, does not even exist. You
read that right; there is a group that includes Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos,
Valendar Turner, John Papadimitriou, David Causer and Stefan Lanka, commonly
referred to as the "Perth Group" because they are based in Perth, Australia,
who, incredible as it may seem, claim that there is no proof for the
existence of HIV. They have a web site called Virusmyth.com,
(
http://www.virusmyth.com ) where their arguments, such as they are, are
laid out. While their views have long ago been refuted by a mountain of
evidence, they cling to their belief that HIV doesn't exist, and so it
cannot be the cause of the AIDS pandemic that is now ravaging the African
subcontinent. They have even issued a $25,000 challenge to the research
community to prove the existence of the virus
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm ).
We see these kinds of devious challenges from time to time; there is for
example, Kent Hovind's $250,000 reward for "empirical evidence of evolution"
(
http://www.drdino.com/). Challenges such as this are not intrinsically
daft, they can be quite effective when the arguments are sound, the
challenge is simple and the conditions are not otherwise strawmen. A good
example of this type is James Randi's well constructed challenge for
evidence of the paranormal
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.randi.org/research/challenge/index.html ). On the face
of it, the Virusmyth.com challenge seems scientifically rigorous yet simple;
the hallmarks of a good challenge. Unfortunately for the folks at Perth, it
merely seems so.
One thing is clear from the response to the researcher who's claimed the
prize; the folks over at Virusmyth.com have no intention of allowing the
contest to be won. The researcher who has claimed the prize, by the way, is
Peter Duesberg, an iconoclastic Berkeley retrovirologist who claims that
although HIV does indeed exist, it is not the cause of AIDS. The Perth Group
has taken steps to ensure that their challenge will remain unanswered. They
do this partly by setting unreasonable rules, partly by constructing
strawmen, and partly by moving the goalposts.
Unreasonable Rules
The challenge itself, is carefully crafted to ensure that no-one is likely
to take them up. This ensures that they can continue to claim that as the
challenge has not been satisfied, their arguments must be devastating to the
research and medical establishment. The reason for this is simply that the
Perth Group insists that the proof for the existence of HIV can arise from
their method alone. No other evidence is acceptable. Basically they have
seven steps (below) that they claim are required to prove that HIV is real.
Imagine a reward for proof that the earth is round. But then requiring for
proof that claimants to the prize must travel to the moon and take a
picture. No other methods, from any other source at any other time would be
acceptable.
While flying to the moon and taking pictures of the earth would indeed prove
that we live on a round ball of mud, it is expensive, dangerous and wholly
unnecessary for that purpose. We could, for example, ask someone to walk
several hundred miles, look down a well and measure the angle of the sun at
noon and compare it to a well near us. Or we could sit by a bay on a calm
clear day and watch boats sail away. Or we could plot our path through the
heavens. Or we could observe the shadow of the earth ON the moon. Or we
could circumnavigate the earth in sailing ships and plot our latitude. Or we
could ascend in a balloon, or in an airplane, or launch a satellite. All of
these methods have been used, some since ancient times, to demonstrate that
the earth is round.
We do not need to isolate HIV by the techniques cited by the Perth Group to
prove its existence. To insist upon their method to establish the reality of
HIV is to unequivocally demonstrate one's credulity before charlatans.
A Classic Strawman Argument
A strawman argument is an argument that uses a contrived and false premise
that is used expressly to deconstruct another argument. The people at
Virusmyth.com claim that since HIV researchers have not used guidelines
established in 1973 at the Institute Pasteur to purify HIV, then the very
existence of the virus is questionable. Unfortunately for the Perth Group,
no such guidelines were established at Pasteur or anywhere else.
Despite what it says at their site, the whole challenge is based upon the
biggest hairiest strawman I've ever seen. The challenge first appeared in a
magazine called Continuum. The folks at Virusmyth publish Continuum, and the
challenge is reprinted at the Virusmyth.com web site
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/award.htm ).
"The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the
Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements
for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:
Culture of putatively infected tissue.
Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.
Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological (sic)
characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of retroviral particles at the
sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not
even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.
Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can
not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is,
tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under
identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected
with a retrovirus.
Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are
introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is
obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5."
Edward King
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~eking/index.htm ) published a
rebuttal to the Virusmyth challenge in AIDS Treatment Update
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/ekisolation.htm ). From that
essay;
"Contrary to the implication by Continuum, the Pasteur Institute did not
draw up such guidelines in 1973. When we asked Continuum to provide the
reference for a published account of the Pasteur Institute's guidelines,
they could only supply two papers which did describe research into
retroviruses, but did not themselves meet the seven steps Continuum was now
requesting for HIV. Ironically, the authors of the papers cited by Continuum
were also the first to describe the isolation of HIV in 1983."
Indeed, those two papers cited by the Perth Group are;
Sinoussi F, Mendiola L, Chermann JC. (1973). Purification and partial
differentiation of the particles of murine sarcoma virus (M. MSV) according
to their sedimentation rates in sucrose density gradients. Spectra
4:237-243. Toplin I. (1973). Tumor Virus Purification using Zonal Rotors.
Spectra 4:225-235.
Spectra is an obscure French-Canadian journal and is blastedly hard to get
hold of. The journal is available in the U.S. only at large university
libraries with comprehensive journal collections. Still, the papers ARE
available. They DO NOT use guidelines from the Pasteur Institute. Further,
take a gander at that first author's name on the first paper cited. She was
a member of the group who first isolated HIV in 1983. Her paper is cited
below.
Virusmyth responds to the Dr. King's point about the absurdity of basing a
challenge to purify the virus on non-existent "guidelines" by agreeing that
the papers they site for evidence for these guidelines do not, in fact,
follow them
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplyek.htm ). One is left to
wonder, then, why they are surprised that few people take them seriously.
Even if these guidelines had been promulgated as the Perth Group asserts,
they would today be considered obsolete and unduly restrictive. HIV happens
to be somewhat sensitive to gradient centrifugation and undergoes minor
structural changes (discussed in detail below) so that electron micrographs
(photographs of the virus under an electron microscope) do not have all the
characteristics of the virus viewed without gradient ultracentrifugation.
Using current methods of molecular biology it has been possible to
synthesize the entire genetic structure of HIV, introduce it into cells
("transfection") and observed that the transfected cells produce HIV viral
particles which can, in turn, infect other cells. This is the strongest
possible proof of the existance of HIV and the one that is pointed to by
Duesberg in his claim for the prize.
Amphiboly
The dead give away for intellectual dishonesty is the practice of amphiboly;
the use of equivocal, poorly worded or murkily-stated premises to further an
argument. Back in school when faced with an assignment from a challenging
professor that we were unable to meet, we used to refer to this strategy
this way; "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with
####". The folks at Virusmyth use a form of amphiboly known as moving
the goalposts, wherein the premise of an argument is changed when the
argument is specifically refuted.
For example, when Ed King refuted their claim that the Pasteur Institute did
not establish the so-called guidelines for proving the existence of a
retrovirus and when Virusmyth was forced to admit that the papers they claim
supported their position did not in fact do so, they suddenly switched
tactics. They claimed that although the Spectra authors did not use the
non-existent Pasteur guidelines, they did not need to because those authors
were purifying RNA tumor viruses
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplyek.htm ).
When challenged by Peter Duesberg to explain why 19 full length clones of
HIV does not constitute proof that the viral genome exists, they claim that
it is because the viral genomes are not all of the same size or sequence
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epreplypd2.htm ). Here they
conveniently ignore the very well known fact that retroviral reverse
transcriptase (RT) is highly error prone. More convenient for Virusmyth, is
that by changing the subject they believe they have rebutted Duesberg's
argument.
The reader will also note the vague and undefined nature of some of their
demands in the challenge. For example they require that tissue from
"matched, unhealthy subjects" be used to isolate highly purified virions
which are then used to infect reputedly uninfected tissue. As they leave the
term "unhealthy" undefined, they retain the ability to claim that studies
which, in fact demonstrate just this, are not valid because the subjects
were not either properly matched or unhealthy
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/epcomreplypd.htm ).
(Note; The text hyperlinked in the previous sentence is touted at the
Virusmyth web site as a rebuttal to Duesberg's claim. I leave it to the
reader to decide if, in fact, Virusmyth addressed Duesberg).
Addressing The Challenge
One of the main reasons why few researchers have, or would, take the
challenge is because there simply is no percentage in it; it is clear that
any claims to the reward will be dodged, the challenge while technically
feasible is costly, and the language of the challenge is so inexact as to be
nearly meaningless. But the most important reason why few people would claim
the prize is that all the conditions as outlined in the challenge to prove
the existence of HIV have already been met.
This challenge is in some ways akin to the absurd comment by Kary Mullis who
has said that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS because there isn't one paper
that demonstrates that it does
(
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/200110 27021329/
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/hiv-aids/a960530.html#foreward ). The
absurdity of this claim has been pointed out to Dr. Mullis over and over
again to no avail; the man still believes that the lack of proof for the
cause of AIDS by HIV in a single paper is sufficient for him to reject the
HIV/AIDS causality. The people at Virumyth have taken this kind of
sophomoric thinking to heart. They insist that HIV cannot be proven to even
exist unless the seven steps that they (wrongly) claim are required to prove
the existence of the virus are done in a single study. Of course all of the
steps listed by them have been done, several of them concurrently in a
single study. But they continue to insist that because no one has done the
experiments in the way they deem necessary, then the virus has not been
proven to exist.
Before getting into a technically dense discussion of the evidence one might
ask a simple question; is there anything a layman might accept as proof for
the existence of the virus? Usually photographs are considered good proof,
with the obvious fakery caveats. There are literally hundreds of papers in
the primary literature with excellent images of the virus in various stages
including within an infected cell, budding from a cell or free from any
cells. There are even numerous such photos published on the web that you can
look at right now. Here are a few.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=medstat.med.utah.edu]/jump/
http://medstat.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/AIDS/AIDS.html#1 http://www.mcl.tulane.edu/departments/pathology/fermin/HIVFIGSTable.html http://www.arte-tv.com/special/AIDS/dtext/sida2.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=wwwpp.uwrf.edu]/jump/
http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~kk00/hivvector/hivvector.html http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.iapac.org]/jump/
http://www.iapac.org/clinmgt/avtherapies/saq6.html http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.unsw.edu.au]/jump/
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/microbiology/maureen/fig5.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=wwwpp.uwrf.edu]/jump/
http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~kk00/poster/HIV/HIV.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=bioinformatik.biochemtech.uni-halle.de]/jump/
http://bioinformatik.biochemtech.uni-halle.de/uli/genetherapy/hiv.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.cmsp.com]/jump/
http://www.cmsp.com/data2/im101.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=www.sci-imagemakers.com]/jump/
http://www.sci-imagemakers.com/markus.html http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://www.deja.com/[ST_artlink=life.anu.edu.au]/jump/
http://life.anu.edu.au/viruses/ICTVdB/61065001.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://web.archive.org/web/20011027021329/http://telpath2.med.utah.edu/WebPath/HISTHTML/EM/EM017.html http://www.avert.org/virus.htm http://www.thebody.com/niaid/hiv_lifecycle/virbud.html http://www.cmsp.com/data2/tng100.htm http://www.cmsp.com/data2/fx100003.htm http://www.micro.unsw.edu.au/maureen/gen-info.htm http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/Big_Virology/BVretro.html Below I present some of the relevant literature that meets the demands of
the challenge. Note that I give a restricted, limited citation list. In most
cases there are many more papers (and probably some that make the point
better than the ones I cite here) that could be cited but are not. I have
cited only those papers that use density ultracentrifugation for virus
purification, as that is one of the requirements set forth by the challenge.
There are other much more powerful methods, but this is the one that
Virusmyth requires so for sake of brevity, I have stuck with it. For the
reader unfamiliar with scientific papers, it should be noted that in none of
the citations in this FAQ do the authors address the challenge directly.
That is, while the authors use the methods that the Perth Group insists upon
they do not specifically address the challenge. I indicate the conditions
for the challenge laid forth by the Perth Group with a (PP) before the
number.
(PP)1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.
This one is easy. In fact culture of "putatively" infected tissue was first
done way back in 1983 by Robert Gallo's group at the NIH in the US and Luc
Montaigner's crew at the Institute Pasteur in Paris (this is in fact, how
the virus was first identified) see; Gallo, RC et al. Science. 1983 May
20;220 (4599):865-7 and Barre-Sinoussi F, et al. Science 1983 May
20;220(4599):868-871.
Later, following the acrimony about just who isolated the first virus, the
issue was revisited. "Two of the first human immunodeficiency virus type-1
(HIV- 1) strains isolated were authenticated by reanalyzing original
cultured samples stored at the Collection Nationale de Culture des
Microorganismes as well as uncultured primary material". From; Wain- Hobson
S, et al. Science 1991 May 17;252(5008):961-5.
HIV can grow in chimpanzees (though it rarely causes disease) and in primary
cell cultures. See; Castro BA, et al. J Med Primatol 198918(3- 4):337-42
HIV-1 culture isolates were obtained from the lymph nodes and peripheral
blood mononuclear cells from 11 HIV-infected patients. See; AIDS 1994
Aug;8(8):1083-8 Tamalet C et al.
Typically, patient tissue culture isolates are derived from initial primary
cultures and clones of the virus are isolated by subsequent passage through
other cell types. See, for example; Saag MS, et al. Nature 1988 Aug 4;334
(6181):440-4, and Cheng-Mayer C, et al. Virology 1991 Mar;181(1):288-94.
Intrinsic biological properties, such as syncytia formation, cell tropism
and cytopathogenicity of different strains of HIV have been assessed by
growing primary and secondary cultures. See; von Briesen H, et al. J Med
Virol 1987 Sep;23(1):51-66.
In fact, even defective HIV, that is HIV that grows very poorly and had an
atypical Western blot and ELISA profile, has been cultured from tissue
derived from patients. See; Huet T, et al. AIDS 1989 Nov;3 (11):707-15.
There are a great many more reports of primary tissue culture isolates of
HIV. Most workers, however, use the far easier, more sensitive and cheaper
method of PCR. Even so, some researchers used tissue culture of primary HIV
isolates from patients infected with HIV to evaluate the cytopathogenicity,
cell tropism, replication capacities of different viral strains and the
correlation to clinical status. See; Lu W, Andrieu JM J Virol 1992
Jan;66(1):334-40.
(PP) 2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.
The Perth Group seems to have a fixation on this method, so let's take a
quick look at it, shall we? Density gradient ultracentrifugation is a method
of separating thingies based on their relative densities. The technique
requires that suspensions containing the virus are made up in a buffered
sucrose solution. The samples are then spun at high speed in order to
greatly enhance the effects of gravity resulting in the suspension of all
things of similar density in a single band. Most (but not all) retroviruses
have a density of 1.16 g/ml (~35% w/v sucrose), thus retroviruses should
form a band on top of a solution containing 1.16 gms of sucrose per ml of
buffer. Here's the thing; that density is NOT a unique characteristic of HIV
or even retroviruses. That is; it is an extrinsic quality. Here's an
analogy; I know that anyone who has seen the Monty Python movie the Holy
Grail will remember that scene where Sir Bedevere is trying to get those
English peasants to figure out what floats on water. They came up with (I
think) wood, ducks and very small rocks. Same thing here; lots of stuff
could sediment at 1.16 g/ml. In fact, everything that has a density of..1.16
g/ml.
Nevertheless, real scientists use the technique to isolate and purify HIV.
In one paper, by Yamamoto S, et al.( J. Virol. Methods 1996 Sep; 61
(1-2):135-43) the authors used density banding to isolate viral particles
and compared the qualitative and quantitative detection of reverse
transcriptase (see below for the significance of this).
It IS true, as noted by the Perth people, that standard HIV-1 particle
preparations created with sucrose density-equilibrium gradients are
contaminated with cell-derived microvesicles, see; Bess JW Jr Virology. 1997
Mar 31;230(1):134-44 and Gluschankof P, et al. Virology 1997 Mar
31;230(1):125- 33. This does not, of course, mean that HIV banding at 1.16
g/ml is non- existent, nor does it mean that the virions cannot be separated
from the microvesicles, see; Ott DE, et al. J Virol 1996 Nov;70(11):7734-43
and, for a more recent report; Dettenhofer M, Yu XF J Virol 1999
Feb;73(2):1460-7
(PP) 3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morfological (sic)
characteristics and dimensions (100-120nm) of retroviral particles at the
sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not
even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
Note here the devious nature of their challenge and one of the reasons why
they will never accept a claim to the reward. As noted by Edward King;
"Scientists have highlighted the irrelevance of this insistence on purity if
the HIV particles themselves are clearly present; for example, it's like
saying that it is impossible to identify a German Shepherd dog by its unique
appearance, if it happens to be surrounded by a pack of poodles."
But what evidence do real scientists have? Well here's a bit;
Viral particle size is usually measured either directly by electron
microscopy (EM), see; Gentile M, et al. J Virol Methods 1994
Jun;48(1):43-52, and Garnier, L, et al. J. Virol. 1999 Mar;73(3):2309-20 or
it is determined by rate zonal sedimentation, see; Garnier, L, et al J Virol
1998 Jun;72(6):4667- 77. By the way HIV, like many other retroviruses is
about 80-120 nm in diameter.
Researchers use EM and gradient ultracentrifugation to demonstrate the
presence of the virus even while acknowledging the presence of microvesicles
that are clearly not viruses. "Electron microscopy of gradient-enriched
preparations from supernatants of virus-infected cells revealed an excess of
vesicles with a size range of about 50-500 nm, as opposed to a minor
population of virus particles of about 100 nm. Electron micrographs of
infected cells showed polarized vesiculation of the cell membrane, and virus
budding was frequently colocalized with nonviral membrane vesiculation."
From; Gluschankof P, et al. Virology 1997 Mar 31;230 (1):125-33. See also;
Meerloo T, et al. J Gen Virol. 1993 Jan;74:129-35.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, very few people take the Perth Group
seriously. There is a great deal of effort underway to generate a vaccine.
One of the things that is likely to be required for an effective modified
virus vaccine is a highly pure, homogenous batch of HIV that is inactive (so
that people do not get infected from the vaccine). This has been
accomplished, see; Richieri SP, et al. Vaccine 1998 Jan-Feb;16 (2-3):119-29.
These folks even have very nice thin section electron microscopy evidence
showing a homogenous field of intact viral particles. They purified the HIV
particles by both anion-exchange chromatography and by sucrose density
gradient ultracentrifugation.
Some workers have even isolated viral cores. After first purifying and
concentrating the virions themselves, the viral capsules are then removed by
detergent and the cores containing the viral genome and associated proteins
is visualized by EM (Welker R. et al. J Virol 2000 Feb;74(3):1168-77).
(PP)4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
Done. In intact virions the process is called natural endogenous reverse
transcription (NERT) and has been demonstrated, see; Zhang H, et al. J Virol
1996 May;70(5):2809-24, Zhang H, et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1998
Apr;14 Suppl 1:S93-5, and Busso M, Resnick L J Virol Methods 1994
Apr;47(1-2):129-39 (also shown in SIV; see Dornadula G, et al. Virology
1997 Jan 6;227(1):260-7). Yamamoto S, et al.( J. Virol. Methods 1996 Sep;
61(1-2):135- 43) used density banding to isolate viral particles and
compared the qualitative and quantitative detection of reverse transcriptase
assays. In fact, one can even measure intraviral RT activity in the blood of
patients who are positive for HIV; Zhang H, et al. J Virol 1996 Jan;70
(1):628-34.
In the course of looking for a vpr gene protein in HIV, HIV particles were
banded on a sucrose density gradient and reverse transcriptase activity was
detected in just the fractions expected for a retrovirus (Cohen et al J.
Virology 64:3097-3099, 1990). RT activity can be detected in the (cell free)
sera of infected people but not in the sera of uninfected people (Heneine W
et al J Infect Dis 1995 May;171(5):1210-6, Pyra H., et al. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 1994 Feb 15;91(4):1544-8, Boni J., et al. J Med Virol 1996
May;49(1):23-8
One report demonstrates that antiretroviral drugs work even on highly
purified virions. The RT activity of HIV occurs primarily in the cytoplasm
of the infected cell, but there is evidence that sometimes the virions can
initiate reverse transcription prior to infection (Lori et al. J Virol 1992
Aug;66(8):5067-74) RT inhibitors inhibited transcription of RT activity
associated with highly purified virions (see; Ventura, M., et al, Arch
Virol 1999;144(3):513-23
As noted above, HIV virions have even been shown to contain HIV DNA (Lori F,
et al. J Virol 1992 Aug; 66(8):5067-74). As HIV is a retrovirus, I will
leave it to the reader to consider the problem for Virusmyth in explaining
where, exactly, retroviral DNA found in the virions comes from.
(PP)5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are
unique.
Well, apart from the RT examples above, I'll just give some of the evidence
for the viral protein, gag. There is, of course, a lot of the same evidence
available for other viral proteins. The acronym gag is derived from
group-specific antigen because it was found that a single antiserum from an
infected person was capable of cross-reacting with related retroviruses. The
gag gene encodes four proteins in the mature virus, the capsid (p24), matrix
(p17), nucleocapsid (p7) and p6 proteins. These processed gag proteins play
different roles in the HIV lifecycle including (but not limited to) budding
(p6), core structure (capsid), genome RNA architecture (nucleocapsid) and
viral capsule structure (matrix). The gag precursor protein plays an
important role in the structure of the immature viral capsule.
There is, of course, a huge amount of evidence based on the more powerful,
specific and sensitive PCR techniques, but I'll stick to the Perth Group's
need for this particular methodology. The following papers used
ultracentrifugation to purify HIV virions. Evidence for sequence
determinants of HIV genome encoded gag genes that control the size, shape,
morphogenesis and budding of viral particles purified by
ultracentrifugation; Garnier, L, et al J Virol 1998 Jun;72(6):4667-77, Wang
CT, et al. J Virol. 1998 Oct;72(10):7950-9, Dawson L & Yu, XF Virology 1998
Nov 10;251(1):141-57 and Reicin AS, et al. J Virol 1996 Dec;70(12):8645-52.
(PP)6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and
can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that
is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under
identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected
with a retrovirus.
Ah, well. We now come across another canard of the Perth Group; "unhealthy
subjects". Weasel room, if I've ever seen it. You see; no matter how many
times the experiment is done, they can dodge claims to the prize by saying
something to the effect of; "ah, but since your controls did not have
(insert lacking illness here), they are not proper controls. Therefore HIV
doesn't exist."
**Sigh** What can anyone say to this? Well not much. However, controls like
this have been done since the very earliest days of the epidemic. For
example, in a very early report patients with AIDS had serum that contained
anti-HTLV antibodies while serum from 25 patients who did not have AIDS did
not react to HTLV (early on in the epidemic when it was clear that it was
caused by an infectious agent, most likely a virus and prior to the
identification of HIV, it was thought that the virus was actually HTLV).
Karpas A, et al. Mol Biol Med 1983 Nov;1(4):457-459.
See Gallo, RC et al. Science. 1983 May 20;220(4599):865-7 and Barre-
Sinoussi F, et al. Science 1983 May 20;220(4599):868-871 for the original
papers on the identification of HIV (called HTLV-III by Gallo and LAV by
Montagnier). They used non-infected tissue controls. Also; Gelmann EP, et
al. Science 1983 May 20;220(4599):862-865
(PP)7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles
are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle
is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.
Leaving aside the Perth Group's required degree of purity, infecting cells
with virus derived from infected people has been done since very early on in
the epidemic. It is a routine way to derive patient isolates or to obtain
viral clones (see, for example; Saag MS, et al. Nature 1988 Aug
4;334(6181):440- 4, and Cheng-Mayer C, et al. Virology 1991
Mar;181(1):288-94. As noted above).
Conclusion
Perhaps the best evidence for the existence of the virus was outlined by
Peter Duesberg when he claimed Virusmyth's prize. He pointed out that by use
of modern molecular biology techniques scientists have been able to
reconstruct intact viruses that are infectious (see for example, Page et al,
J. Virol. 64:5270-5276, 1990). Of course there is no ethical way that the
virus, reconstructed or not, can be used to demonstrate the pathology of the
virus, but we can prove that the virus exists. Fore example, it has been
shown by PCR that cells from infected persons contain HIV DNA but cells from
uninfected people do not (see; Bagasra O, et al. N Engl J Med 326:1385-1391,
1992, Ho DD, et al. N Engl J Med 321:1621-5, 1989, Rouzioux C, et al. AIDS
6:373- 377, 1992, Alimenti A, et al. AIDS 8:895-900, 1994).
Duesberg in claiming the prize, noted that "The existence of the retrovirus
HIV predicts that HIV DNA can be isolated from the chromosomal DNA of
infected cells. This prediction has been confirmed as follows: Full-length
HIV-1 and HIV-2 DNAs have been prepared from virus-infected cells and cloned
in bacterial plasmids (Fisher AG et al, Nature (London) 316:262-265 1985,
Levy, JA et al. Science 232:998-1001 1986 and Barnett, SW et al. J Virol.
67:1006-1014 1993). Such clones are totally free of all viral and cellular
proteins, and cellular contaminants that co-purify with virus. These clones
produce infectious virus that is neutralized by specific antisera from AIDS
patients. For example, virus produced by infectious HIV-2 DNA is neutralized
by antiserum from HIV-2 but not from HIV-1-infected people (Barnett, SW et
al. J Virol. 67:1006-1014 1993)."
The evidence for the existence of HIV presented in the papers cited in this
FAQ is not comprehensive. It is not meant to be. Instead the point here has
been to show that despite the fact that there has been no one who has taken
up Virusmyth's challenge, there is indisputable evidence that HIV exists
even when using the Perth Group's favored methods. They have constructed a
strawman challenge that has led them to a claim that would be laughable if
it weren't for the fact that there are some groups out there who use
arguments like Virusmyth's to make the claim that AIDS is not caused by HIV.
If the virus doesn't even exist, so the argument goes, there is no way that
it can cause AIDS. Frightened, desperate and uninformed people are then led
to believe that they need not seek treatment for their infection. In this
way, Virusmyth is indirectly responsible for the suffering and deaths of
people fooled by their pseudoscience. Some of the members of the Perth Group
are scientists and they commit the worst sin any scientist can; they ignore
data that falsifies their hypothesis. They have much to answer for.
Every epidemic disease is now renamed 'AIDS' under the Bangui Definition.
Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished overnight or 'AIDS' is simply the old diseases with a new name. You decide.
-------------
In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by
HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea
that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is
based entirely on supposition.
At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the "Bangui Definition" of AIDS in Africa.
The CDC officials later explained, "The definition was reached by consensus, based mostly on the delegates' experience in treating AIDS patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the
extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no testing is available.
It's major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea..."(McCormick, 1996). Where AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991; Widy-Wirski, 1988).
_______
Other conditions common in underprivileged and
impoverished communities that are known to cause false
positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke, 1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992; Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa each year - more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982 (WHO, 1998)*.
________
STRAIGHT AIDS MYTH SHATTERED
New York Post
March 19, 2004 --
THE public health experts - and their amen corner in the media - owe Helen Gurley Brown an apology.
The legendary Cosmopolitan editor was vilified in 1993 when she published a piece called "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." But she was right.
Eleven years later, Details is asking: "Whatever Happened to AIDS and Straight Men?" The article states, "A disease-free man who has unprotected sex with a drug-free woman stands a one in 5 million chance of contracting HIV."
The story by Kevin Gray also cites a joke that made the rounds of the New York City Department of Health as statistics came in showing that the predicted spread of AIDS to heterosexuals wasn't happening:
"What do you call a man who got HIV from his girlfriend? . . . A liar."
"I feel somewhat vindicated," Brown told PAGE SIX.
Michael Fumento, who wrote the original 1990 book titled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS," said, "I'm not waiting for an apology. It's not going to happen."
When Basic Books published Fumento's tome, "Distributors refused to handle it," he says. "Stores refused to carry it. And at many stores that did have it, clerks left it in the basement."
Celia Farber, who wrote an AIDS column in Spin magazine, was routinely attacked because she refused to rehash the propaganda put out by AmFAR and other groups.
"Everybody who was wrong got journalism awards. Everybody who was right got all but driven from the profession," Farber said.
Farber exposed the conspiracy between profit-hungry drug companies, researchers who wanted more funding, homosexuals who didn't want the disease to be known as "the gay plague," and conservatives who wanted to turn back the sexual revolution.
"They believed in what they were doing, not what they were saying," Fumento said. "They knew it was lies. They felt the end justified the means."
At a recent editorial meeting at Seed, the new science magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Laurie Garrett supposedly threatened to quit when a colleague suggested a story about Peter Duesberg, a leading retrovirologist.
Duesberg lost his funding, his laboratory, and his students when he announced in 1987 that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. "He lost everything," said one insider. Duesberg switched to cancer research, and is now touted to win a Nobel Prize.
_________
Excerpted from United News of India:
CIA Report on HIV/AIDS Baseless
by Annapurna Jha
November 10, 2002
''Mr Gates interest in HIV/AIDS projects in India is not meant for charity,
as it appears. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation contributing funds to
fight AIDS is to protect his billions of dollars of investments in
pharmaceutical companies interested in conducting field trials in India,''
Mr Mulloli said.
Health Minister Shatrughan Sinha has already rejected the CIA report, and
the National Intelligence Council clearly stated the CIA estimates to be
'highly exaggerated' and not based on surveillance data collected in India.
Mr Gates has reportedly funded the controversial report and also made huge
investments in companies involved in AIDS drug research.
Charging that the CIA's direct and unwarranted involvement in Indian public
health issues amounted to direct intervention in its domestic affairs and a
challenge to its soverignity, Mr Mulloli questioned the basis on which the
CIA said that 310,000 people had died in India due to AIDS in 1999 alone.
The Indian Parliament talked of a mere 114 AIDS related deaths in 1999.
--------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Pioneer News Service, New Delhi:
Sinha Rejects US Report on AIDS
November 10, 2002
India has rejected an US intelligence agency report which projects that the
country will have over 25 million people suffering with AIDS by 2010 even as
an NGO charged that the report was aimed at exploiting Indian market for
AIDS drugs and vaccines.
----------------------------------------
Excerpted from the Daily Pioneer:
Mysterious Malaise
by Purushottaman Mulloli of JackIndia
November 17, 2002
The CIA says India will have 25 million infected people by 2010, the maximum
in any country. But India has recorded only 287 AIDS deaths in 1997, 217 in
1998, and 114 in 1999. In whose interest is it to push up these figures?