Duesberg’s ‘answer’ to the Perth Group on the ‘HIV’ existence question, and the Perth Group’s reply


-----Original Message-----
From: peter duesberg
Sent: Friday, 10 March 2006 10:58 PM
To: bialy harvey
Cc: [Anthony Liversidge]; [Bob Leppo]; David Crowe; Val Turner; [Etienne de Harven]; [Gordon Stewart]; [Celia Farber]
Subject: Re: will wonders never cease


I know about this 3d-electronmicrograph of HIV by a German-UK team, and have sent the reference to Liversidge about two weeks ago as "the answer" to the existence of HIV.  But apparently it got lost in the black whole of Anthony's web.



From: Valendar Turner
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 12:26 AM
To: Peter Duesberg
Cc: [Anthony Liversidge]; [Bob Leppo]; [Celia Farber]; [Claus Koehnlein]; [David Rasnick]; Jim Wolfe
Subject: RE: will wonders never cease

Dear Peter,

Thanks very much for your email in regard to the 2006 Briggs paper published in Structure.1

There is no doubt that Briggs et al have conducted a state of the art, technically superb study on the morphology of some particles.  But are those particles "the ultimate answer to Perth"? That is, do they prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of HIV?

When you claimed the Continuum prize you agreed with us that reverse transcriptase, particles and the proteins detected in the cell cultures are not specific to "HIV".  You wrote then "Indeed, each of these criteria could reflect another retrovirus, and some of these criteria, e.g. particles and proteins, could reflect non-viral material altogether"2 (emphasis added).

Your claim for the existence of "HIV" and thus for the prize was based on the existence of the "HIV" infectious molecular clone.2, 3  However, neither you nor Brian Foley who made a similar claim http://www.rethinking.org/bmj/response_66994.html could provide evidence for the existence of the “HIV" infectious molecular clone.  Now you say the electron micrographs of some particles chosen arbitrarily from the myriad of particles of different morphologies present in "AIDS" cultures4 are "the answer" to the existence of “HIV”.  Isn't this in conflict with your views concerning the particles' specificity?

Because we had many requests to comment on the Briggs paper we wrote a brief letter to Structure.  Our commentary and their letter of rejection are attached.

These are on our website under “Papers/letter rejected by the scientific press”.



1.         Briggs JA, Grunewald K, Glass B, Forster F, Krausslich HG, Fuller SD. The Mechanism of HIV-1 Core Assembly: Insights from Three-Dimensional Reconstructions of Authentic Virions. Structure 2006; 14:15-20.

2.         Duesberg PH. Peter Duesberg responds. Continuum 1996; 4:8-9. http://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no2.pdf

3.         Duesberg PH. Near enough is good enough? Continuum 1996; 4:26. http://www.altheal.org/continuum/Vol4no5.pdf

4.         Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. Isolated facts about HIV-A reply. Continuum 1996; 14:185-186. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/epreplyek.htm (Search for the text "HIV particles look different "from naturally existing viruses").