It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Isolate some first.
How can we best help Africa? How can we set priorities aimed at bringing under control what is described as an AIDS epidemic? For twenty years, all AIDS research has been based on the HIV hypothesis. Do we now have reasons to question this hypothesis? Yes, because there is a major problem with isolation and purification of HIV. The major problem being that, in spite of innumerable claims to the contrary, this retrovirus has never been isolated nor purified in a scientifically acceptable manner that would satisfy the classic requirements of virology.
To demonstrate the problem’s magnitude it appears necessary to compare current results on HIV with those obtained, previously, in experimental pathology, on another retrovirus known to be significantly associated with a particular leukaemia of laboratory mice, the Friend leukaemia. Both retroviruses, i.e. the Friend leukaemia virus and the HIV hypothetically related to AIDS, share extremely similar morphology under the electron microscope, have identical diameters, and sediment at the same density in sucrose gradients. A direct comparison between isolating and purifying these two different retroviruses is, therefore, entirely appropriate.
A virus is a microscopic particle of particular size and shape (morphology) which contains particular constituents (biochemical properties) and which is able to replicate only at the behest of living protoplasm, that is, a virus is an obligatory intracellular parasite. Replication of a virus-like particle is the property which defines the particle as being infectious, that is, virus-like particle + replication = virus. These defining data determine that the only way to prove the existence of a novel (new) virus is to (i) isolate viral-like particles, that is, first obtain the particles separate from everything else; (ii) determine their morphological characteristics; (iii) analyse their constituents (nucleic acid and proteins) demonstrating that such properties are those of retroviruses and are unique; (iv) prove that the particles are infectious, that is, when pure particles are introduced into non-infected cell cultures, new but identical particles appear. Only then can the viral-like particles be deemed to a virus. In the case of retroviruses, the steps in this procedure were developed over the half century that preceded the AIDS era and are described in Toplin and Sinoussi.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This means one of two things, of the three papers you linked, either you have relied solely upon the abstract yourself, or you have paid for the privilege of reading these studies but were either too lazy or too disrespectful to quote the studies thoroughly.
In stark contrast to your pay to read studies, those insisting that the HIV virus has never been isolated offer up their research online free of charge. Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto
You have presented yourself in this site as a medical expert, and I have wondered what has taken you so long to make an appearance in this thread, but is this truly the best you can do? Three abstracts?
If you are the medical expert you present yourself as, and being an esteemed member of ATS, I know for a fact you are quite capable of communicating, why not simply just explain in layman's terms why Deusberg, Papadoulos and others are wrong in their assertions, questions, and skepticism's?
If you read my entire post, you would see that I told readers how to access these studies for free. They are all from VERY large journals, which most public libraries have (or are given) subscriptions to. I don't pay for a subscription to the journals myself, either. I work at an academic-center hospital (university), and have access to them through the university's library website.
Many of these articles are offered free-of-charge because they were never published outside of a personal website. Running a journal costs money, which the publishers try to make back in charging for views, much like bookstores. You can't just walk into a bookstore and walk out with a free copy of anything you like, can you?
In 1993 John Maddox, the editor of Nature, commissioned a commentary refuting the hypothesis that drugs cause AIDS (Ascher et al., 1993). The piece described 215 patients each of which had used drugs (Duesberg, 1993a; Duesberg, 1993b; Duesberg, 1993c). In view of this Duesberg sent a letter to Nature arguing that the perfect correlation between drug use and AIDS confirmed, rather than refuted, the drug hypothesis. Maddox censored the letter and wrote an editorial "Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?" (Maddox, 1993). The editorial pointed out that the world's oldest science journal could not afford an open scientific debate on the cause of AIDS because of the perceived dangers of infectious AIDS.
The comments include some explanation of the wretched Natrass’ activities in this line, which are of course entirely predictable given her affiliations, the most recent of which is an invitation to visit Yale and teach the hapless students there. There was a time when such lame brains engaged in servile self promotion would not have been offered a visit to Yale but apparently that era is long past.
Nope, three abstracts are not "the best I can do", it's just all I "wish to do".
Originally posted by amcpwoy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Her middle Pubmed link, PMID: 2420772 or "the first Japanese isolate of AIDS virus as YU-1"
the fulltext PDF is free of charge at
The 1st and 3rd I can upload, if it leads to a grounded debate...
Originally posted by halfoldman
Duesberg (who doesn't deny HIV exists) would not agree with Lanka, for example. www.righto.com...
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Dr. Stefan Lanka is around my age, born in 1963 in Germany. As a schoolboy he had an interest in understanding how Nature worked, and studied Biology at University. He got a PhD in Biology by isolating a virus called the ectocarpus siliculosus virus. He was very excited because he thought he had discovered the first stable virus-host relationship: The sea algae 'infected' with this virus thrived in its presence.
He wrote up his thesis in the late 1980s, and got his PhD, and was deemed to be an expert on viruses. The HIV-AIDS hysteria was at its peak and he read the scientific literature, but nowhere did he find any scientific publication where the HIV-virus had been isolated from the host cell. Nowhere! Naturally enough he was astounded, told everybody but nobody was interested. Dr Lanka moved on then from the HIV-virus to the 'viruses' that we vaccinate our children against such as mumps, measles and rubella, and again found no scientific paper where any scientist had managed to isolate them.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
....any attempt to provide context for a bit of science, provide more or better sources, or to simply offer an opinion acts as an invitation for you to pour hate-filled posts my way. I just don't care to deal with you anymore, and you are part of the reason myself (and two other medical professionals I know posted here) have left. You are contributing to the decline in expertise in this forum, and are making it a single-channel source of information, rather than the back-and-forth it used to be.
So, good luck with everything. I'm sure nothing I can say or do will change your opinion, so...why bother? You have the benefit of NOT being HIV positive, so of course you can rally behind the myths of Duesberg and de Harven. No amount of science, direct contradiction of your sources, or anything else will make a difference.
Originally posted by MemoryShock
Potential link between an auto immune disorder in Thailand and recent Merck Vaccine trials...
occupycorporatism.com...edit on Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:16:54 -0500 by MemoryShock because: (no reason given)