Dear The Perth Group,
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t
think Montagnier’s claims in “House of Numbers” will be very useful to
support the dissidents’ ideas.
This is to say, the Perth
Group’s observations and similar ones are unimpeachable, but the
enormity of nonsense of the things repeated by the Nobel laureate gives
the orthodoxy a way out.
In fact, if Montagnier is the
discoverer of the HI virus, he is (or was) also one of the top experts
in the retrovirology. Therefore it seems impossible he doesn’t know
“According to all the HIV
experts, once infected with a retrovirus, always infected. This is
because the retroviral RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA which is then
incorporated into the host genome (DNA). Once in the host DNA it
cannot be removed by any means. This is why HIV infection is
incurable. As retrovirologist Harold Varmus said in 1998, “Trying to
rid the body of a virus whose genome is incorporated into the host
genome may be impossible”. So Montagnier has to explain how "general
health measures", which we assume equate to clean water, sanitation, a
good diet and medical services, are able to excise approximately 9
thousand specific bases from the human genome while managing to leave
all the rest intact (by The Perth Group)
If now Montagnier claims … what
he claims, this simply suggest he has become mad or that
arteriosclerosis has confused him or perhaps his interest in promoting
papaya leads him to these fantasies of his: wild fantasies that do not
match with any scientific theory, neither orthodox nor dissident (and
not even his own of some coherence!)
If I were orthodox, I would say
Montagnier was a relevant scientist until awarded the Nobel Prize in
2008, but that now he is a rather confused old man, and in this way
elegantly avoid facing the questions he broached. I’d hide the whole
issue with a kindly veil and would continue to think… as usual.
Nevertheless there are tens of thousands of researchers working with the
“HI virus”. If the dissidents insist too much on this subject, this is
bound to happen.
Then the dissidents could use
another slightly different point of view: Montagnier did not become
confused (but other adjectives could be used), HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE
THIS, and House of Numbers is just the most recent episode. What is
serious is that the orthodox scientific world has never been aware of
this; it even brought to the Olympus of the Nobel so much lack of common
sense, MAKING IT ITS OWN. They preferred him over Gallo, whose
wrongdoings cannot be forgotten about.
Montagnier’s numerous nonsensical
“gems” in past years are all documented, especially by the Perth Group.
But till now the principles of Evidence Based Medicine have been
regularly ignored so the hope on some effect remains scanty. Let's see.
Instead, if I were an
HIV-positive individual, I would be sorry to watch these too passionate
discussions about “virus/non-virus”, that are undoubtedly important and
must be settled. I would be more in favor of discussions on how to
improve my health and about concrete alternative, really effective
proposals. Antiretroviral drugs, even with all their limitations, offer
some (improvement). Real and not only apparent and that must be
explained better. Unfortunately, from the dissidents’ side there are
several individual stories that ended up badly, one of them, and not
easily forgettable, being that of Christine, who was a flag for many of
Because I would expect good
results from a good theory and vice versa, the situation is not so clear
and convincing. This is the real conundrum the stands on the dissident
movement, to my view.