The Perth Group on Etienne De Harven's and Andrew Maniotis's
that 'HIV' is an 'endogenous retrovirus/endogenous retroviral sequence/retroid'–
but with which 'unnecessary hypotheses', trying to
sound clever and original, they stupidly persist
In November 2009 Professor Etienne de Harven delivered a
slide presentation at the
Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California,
in which he contended
that in their 'HIV' discovery paper in
in May 1983, 'Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patient at
Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)', Montagnier et al.
published a micrograph 'unquestionably' showing
'the assembly (budding) of retroviruses on the cell surface of lymphocytes
which had been added to the complex cell cultures studied at the Pasteur
These 'observed retroviruses', he claimed, were '[human] endogenous
Such 'HERVs interfere with the interpretation of
clinical studies of AIDS patients (Viral load) as well as with the
analysis of the original 1983 Pasteur Institute paper'.
In other words, reckons de Harven, Montagnier and colleagues mistook a HERV for
In a piece
posted on the RA website on 19 June 2008,
for the so-called measurement of HIV viral load', de Harven
'endogenous retroviral sequences that are present in ALL OF US!', and not
'HIV viral load'.
Apart from having trouble hearing, it seems that de Harven also
has trouble reading.
In an email to him and Andrew Maniotis in July 2008 (copied
below) the Perth Group pointed out the fallacies of their contentions.
At the RA conference in November 2009, de Harven was still propounding
the fallacies the Perth Group had pointed out to him a year and a half earlier.
And his 'PCR for the so-called measurement of HIV viral load'
confusion of so-called 'viral load' with 'viral burden' (mentioned
is still up on the RA website as the sort of junk science Crowe and his RA go
Oh, and Andrew Maniotis is still, in December 2009, emailing
everyone about his 'retroids, HERV's, and ... molecular signatures', and
suggesting that 'Gallo is on the right track if he revises his hypothesis and if
he pursues' them instead. Which is to say, in Maniotis's brilliant, original
view, 'HIV' is actually a 'retroid' or a 'HERV'
with a unique 'molecular signature'.
Date: Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: Mr. Duesberg's Soft Spot
To: Etienne De Harven, Andrew Maniotis
Dear Andrew and Etienne,
Thank you for your emails.
Unfortunately, although we
would very much like to meet with Peter and have indeed
requested a meeting to discuss our differences, no such meeting
has eventuated or is presently planned.
In your emails you asked us to convey to Peter
that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus/endogenous retroviral
neither of you recall the lengthy paper we wrote in Continuum in
1996, before you became dissidents, in response to Peter's claim
that HIV had been isolated? In this paper we presented all
possible interpretations of the so called "HIV" DNA/RNA,
including its being that of an exogenous retrovirus, and
everything you suggest. This is discussed in detail under the
SPECULATIONS ON HIV DNA. You
will appreciate that in 1996 the evidence for any of these
possibilities was not as definitive as it is at present. http://theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/pgvsduesbergreward.html
In your email you refer to an
"HIV" molecular signature. A "signature" as you know, is
specific but we do not see anything specific about the so called
molecular signature. In fact it's not just its molecular
signature that is not specific but everything else about it,
particles, proteins, RT and antibodies.
You want us to agree with
You say "That measurements of
the so-called viral load are never made on isolated retroviral
particles (isolated from the blood of HIV+ individuals)". If
by this you mean they should measure the number of RNA molecules
in particles isolated from blood then it makes no sense. Why
count molecules to estimate how many particles you have when you
can count the particles?
You say "That, instead, these measurements are
always made on extracts from circulating leucocyte nuclei". The
viral load is never done using "circulating leucocyte nuclei" or
even cells, where most if not all the "HIV RNA" is in the
cytoplasm. Are you confusing "viral load" (RNA in plasma) with
"viral burden" (DNA, "provirus")?
You say "That the human genome
contains at least 6% of retroviral-analogous sequences". Could
you please define "retroviral-analogous sequences"?
The facts are:
present there is no evidence that proves the existence of
endogenous retroviruses. This is at least one point of
agreement between the Perth Group and Gallo. During the
Parenzee trial, Gallo said a number of times, by definition, a
particle can be considered to be a virus if, and only if,
evidence exists that it is transmittable. Responding
to a question put to him by Kevin Borick he stated:
…endogenous retroviruses aren't viruses as your first witness [E.P-E] properly
said, they are particles, they have never been transmitted. A
virus is something that infects, that you prove goes from
person. A to B. Short of that they are particles. Where a
virus at least has to be transmitted in vitro in the laboratory,
it goes from one cell to another, it's never been demonstrated
for endogenous retrovirus. (T1298).
claim that "HIV" DNA is that of an endogenous
retrovirus/endogenous retroviral sequences/retroid the minimum
necessary but not sufficient condition is to have proof that the
PCR primers originate from virus-like particles/endogenous
retroviral sequences/retroids. As far we know no such proof
exists. Do you have proof?
the HIV experts agree that to prove the existence of the "HIV"
genome (RNA/DNA), and proteins, that is, HIV, the particles must
be purified. See attached paper which cites experts testifying
at the Parenzee trial.
ultimate origin of all the primers used to date in "HIV" PCR
testing is a poly (A) RNA (adenine-rich RNA) obtained from
density gradient material (the 1.16 g/ml band), which Gallo and
Montagnier claim to be purified HIV.
Gallo nor Montagnier presented evidence for HIV purification.
the early 1970s Peter and Gallo showed that retroviral particles
contain poly (A) RNA. But at least Gallo and Temin knew as far
back as 1972 that this RNA is not specific to retroviruses. In
1974 Temin wrote: "The occurrence of A-rich regions in viral RNA
has also been used to measure virion concentration [presently
known as "HIV" viral load]. Since poly (A) regions are present
in many viruses [viruses other than retroviruses] and most
messenger RNAs [cellular RNAs], additional criteria for the
presence of an rnadnavirus [retrovirus] must be used" .
to the excellent work by Djamel Tahi and the publications of
Bess et al and Gluschankof et al we now know that the "purified
virus" (1.16 g/ml band) actually consists of nothing but
cellular debris. See attached file Appendix 11 of our Mother to
Child Monograph. This
being the case the only scientific deduction one can make,
mysterious as it may seem, is that the "HIV" genome is cellular
RNA/DNA and has nothing to do with exogenous /endogenous
retroviruses or retroids and endogenous retroviral sequences.
Montagnier and Gallo discovered a virus, its ultimate origin,
monkey/ human/ endogenous/ exogenous, while of interest to some,
it has no bearing on its transmission and pathogenicity.
The questions are:
all the evidence shows that the "HIV molecular marker" is
cellular, why should we invoke unnecessary hypotheses?
the HIV experts accept that to prove the existence of HIV
(genome, proteins), purification is absolutely necessary, and
since to date none of them can provide such proof, why do the
dissidents give to the HIV experts what they admit they need but
do not have?
1. The cellular and molecular
biology of RNA tumor viruses, especially avian leukosis-sarcoma
viruses, and their relatives, Advances in Cancer Research, Vol
19, pages 47 to 104 (1974).