The URL of this file is http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST/ResponsetoJohnMoore.

doc N TE
At the 2006 International AIDS Conference Professor John Moore presented a session entitled "HIV Science and Responsible Jo rnalis!"" In his presentation Professor Moore referred to #leni Papadop los$ Valendar % rner and the Perth &ro p" http'((aidstr th"or)(hi*+science+and+responsible+,o rnalis!"php Soon after -e sent Professor Moore this response and also entered into so!e brief correspondence *ia e!ail" %his is appended at the end of this file"

========================================================== September 23rd 2006 Dear Professor Moore, Since in recent years including the 16th nternational ! DS "onference you ha#e had so much to say about the Perth $roup, %e %ould li&e to put a fe% things straight' (ind regards, )leni Papadopulos*)leopulos

1' +et us ma&e it clear that %e are not ! DS denialists' ,hat is, %e do not deny that in 1-.1 a syndrome in#ol#ing a high fre/uency of (S and a number of opportunistic infections %as identified in gay men and subse/uently became &no%n as ! DS' 0hat %e are doing and ha#e been doing from the #ery beginning is to /uestion the accepted cause of ! DS and to put for%ard an alternati#e theory for the cause of ! DS %hich has a number of %ell* defined predictions, most of %hich ha#e been satisfied' 1 2' 1ou said2 3An! one" m#n or wom#n" who$s persu#ded th#t s#fe se% or using cle#n needles is not necess#r! #nd then &ecomes '() infected #nd dies of A(*S" the person #d+ising them in#ppropri#tel! &e#rs responsi&ilit!.4 n our publications %e ha#e stressed that all the e#idence sho%s passi#e anal intercourse plays a &ey role in the causation of ! DS' ,his being the case safe se5 is e5tremely important in its pre#ention' 6o%e#er ten years ago the 36 74 e5perts claimed that 36 74 can be eliminated and that ! DS can be

treated %ith 6!!8,' ,he acceptance of this claim by some led to an increased fre/uency of unprotected se5' n our publications %e not only stressed the need for clean needle usage but according to our theory no recreational drugs should be used no matter ho% they are deli#ered be it either by needles clean or dirty, or orally' 3' 1ou said2 3An!one persu#ded not to t#,e #ntiretro+ir#ls #nd use inste#d #ltern#ti+e medicines - lemon #nd g#rlic" pot#toes #nd wh#te+er - is #lso d!ing unnecess#ril!. 4 Since in our #ie% at present no e#idence e5ists that ! DS is caused by a retro#irus, %e see no reason for ! DS patients to be treated %ith antiretro#iral drugs' 0e did %rite a critical analysis on the use of !9, as an antiretro#iral agent %hen %e sho%ed that, gi#en its pharmacological properties, it is not possible for it to ha#e an antiretro#iral effect' 2 0e ha#e also presented e#idence that !9, and ne#irapine do not pre#ent mother*to*child transmission'3, : 6o%e#er, %e ne#er ad#ised that antiretro#iral drugs should ne#er be prescribed since up till no% the possibility had not been e5cluded that they may ha#e clinical benefits acting by means other than as antiretro#iral agents' 6o%e#er, gi#en the latest publication on 6!!8,, this may not be the case'; !t the #ery beginning of the ! DS era %e put for%ard alternati#e %ays of pre#enting and treating ! DS'6 6o%e#er, no%here in our publications ha#e %e e#en suggested that ! DS can be treated by 3lemon and garlic, potatoes and %hate#er4' :' 1ou said2 3An!one persu#ded not to &e screened for '() st#tus #nd depri+ed of the ch#nce of tre#tment or counselling dies unnecess#ril!. 4 ,he only test for screening for 36 74 status is the antibody test' n our publications %e ha#e ne#er said that either blood used for transfusion or patients belonging to the ! DS ris& groups should not be tested' 6o%e#er, %e do claim that up to no%, no e#idence e5ists that a positi#e 36 74 antibody test pro#es 36 74 infection'< !ll the presently a#ailable e#idence sho%s that a positi#e test may represent nothing more than a non*specific indicator of altered homeostasis connoting a propensity to de#elop particular diseases' "linical medicine has an abundance of non*specific tests and their non* specificity does not preclude their utility' : ;' 1ou said2 3And inf#nts whose '() infected mothers listen to A(*S deni#lists ne+er got the ch#nce to m#,e their own decisions. 4 6o% can a 3*year old infant ma&e his or her o%n decision= 6' 1ou said2 3Now the A(*S deni#lists #&use the peer.re+iewed liter#ture. The! #&use science. The! cite onl! old" long refuted p#pers #s if the! still represented st#te of the #rt ,nowledge" which the! don$t. So the! #rgue th#t T/" m#l#ri#" lepros!" pregn#nc! c#use f#lse positi+e tests in

#n '() #ss#!. Now this is simpl! not true of the modern tests" #nd it$s 0uestion#&le how signific#nt it w#s with the e#rl! gener#tion of #ss#!s. 4 0hich 3old, long refuted papers4 are you referring to= n particular, %hich 3old, long refuted papers4 regarding 36 74 antibody test specificity ha#e %e cited to bac& our claim that the specificity of the 36 74 antibody test has not been determined= n a boo& Retroviral Testing and Quality Assurance, Essentials for Laboratory Diagnosis. %ritten in 200; by three of the 36 74 e5perts in 36 74 testing, >iel "onstantine ?Professor of Pathology, Department of Pathology, @ni#ersity of Maryland School of Medicine A Director "linical mmunology +aboratory, @ni#ersity of Maryland Medical "enter A +aboratory of 7iral Diagnostics, nstitute of 6uman 7irology, Baltimore, Maryland, @S!C, 8ebecca Sa#ille ?Dood and Drug !dministration, DD!E"D)8EF>DEFD) 7EDSP DP, 8oc&#ille, Maryland, @S!C, )liGabeth Da5 ?Director, >ational Serology 8eference +aboratory, !ustralia' ! 0orld 6ealth FrganiGation "ollaborating "entre on 6 7E! DS, DitGroy, 7ictoria, !ustraliaC, on page -: one reads 3!mong the medical conditions that are suspected or occasionally &no%n to produce false* positi#e screening test results are as follo%s2 Malaria Syphilis Pregnancy 6ypergammaglobulinemia, renal failure, li#er disease Some parasitic diseases and #iral diseases ?e'g', influenGaC !utoantibodies ?autoimmune diseasesC 6 7 #accination ?becoming a maHor causeC ,ransfusions ?usually multipleC4 >ote2 1' the same conditions are cited on page 1-: for causing 3indeterminate4 ?false*positi#eC 0estern Blot tests' 2' >o mention is made of Mycobacteria in general or ,B in particular ?see belo%C' 3' n countries such as South !frica, a positi#e screening test is considered proof for 36 74 infection' 8egarding the 0estern blot, on page 1-< the authors %rote2 3"ontrary to %hat most indi#iduals belie#e, false*positi#e 0estern blot results do occur, although this is not commonI,his is because the original 0estern Blot criteria Jin fact the criteria introduced in 1-.< by some laboratories %ere not the first criteriaK included the need for reacti#ity to each of the three gene products ?gag, pol, and en#C, but %hen these criteria %ere changed in 1--3 to a less stringent criteria ?to the "D" criteria that dropped the re/uirement for reacti#ity to p31C more false positi#es occurred' J0as the 36 74 p31 dropped because there is unambiguous proof that p31 is a cellular protein= -, 10K' ,his change %as instituted in an attempt to decrease the number of indeterminate resultsI n a report in 1--., it %as documented that false*positi#e 0estern blot results occur to a higher degree in lo%*ris& populations' Ff :21 blood donors %ho %ere positi#e for 6 7*1 by 0estern blot and %ho lac&ed reacti#ity to p31 ?polymerase antigenC, 3- ?-'3LC met the criteria of possibly being falsely positi#e'4

Fn page 1.: the authors %rote2 36 7 serologic confirmatory tests should more correctly be called supplemental testsI,he purpose of serologic confirmatory tests is to rule out false*positi#e results by screening tests, not to confirm that a person in une/ui#ocally infected %ith 6 7 or to confirm that a person is negati#e for 6 7'4 ndeed, a positi#e 0estern blot cannot be considered as proof for 36 74 infection'< )specially %hen one considers that e#en today the criteria for a positi#e test #aries from country to country, from laboratory to laboratory %ithin the same country' !lso the criteria for a positi#e test ha#e changed o#er time in a totally arbitrary fashion' nitially, the presence of one reacti#e band either p2: or p:1 %as considered proof for 36 74 infection' 0hen it %as realised that most of us %ould test positi#e at one time or another more stringent criteria re/uiring more than one band %ere introduced' ,hen, as the abo#e authors pointed out, %hen 3these criteria %ere changed in 1--3 to a less stringent criteria ?to the "D" criteria that dropped the re/uirement for reacti#ity to p31C more false positi#es occurred' 3,his change %as instituted in an attempt to decrease the number of indeterminate results4' $i#en the conse/uences on being diagnosed 36 74 positi#e, it is /uite biGarre that the criteria can be changed in a totally arbitrary fashion' ,he problem is not that ,B, malaria, leprosy, pregnancy and other conditions cause false positi#e tests in an 36 74 assay' ,he problem is there is still no e#idence that a positi#e result in an antibody test in any indi#idual, no matter ho% many reacti#e bands there are, pro#es 36 74 infection' ,he only %ay to determine the specificity of the antibody tests is to use a gold standard %hich for the 36 74 antibody tests is 36 74 itself' 6o%e#er, to date nobody has determined the specificity of the 36 74 antibody test using the gold standard and in fact t%o of the best &no%n ! DSE46 74 e5perts, Blattner and Mortimer accept that no such gold standard e5ists' 11, 12 ,he 3e5cuse4 of 3old, long refuted papers4 is one of the most often used arguments by 36 74 e5perts in ad#ising reHection of our papers by scientific Hournals' n 1-.. %e submitted a paper to the Medical Journal of Australia'13 ,his argued that 6 7 does not cause (aposisM sarcoma and it %as thrice reHected on the ad#ice of Nestablished e5pertsN' !mong others, including the use of 3old references4, one of the re#ie%ers stated, N,he author tries to argue that (aposisM sarcoma cannot be caused by 6 7 infection, and that therefore ! DS is not due to 6 7 infection' J n the paper %e did not argue about %hat causes ! DS but only argued the cause of (SK' ,he arguments put for%ard by the author are /uite unsatisfactory, and are not supported by e#en a desultory reading of the literature /uoted' n addition, the author fails to e5amine the body of epidemiological, immunological and cellular literature concerning the pathology, pathogenesis and clinical associations of this fascinating manifestation of 6 7 infectionN' 1et later on, e#en a small fraction of this Nepidemiological, immunological and cellular literatureN led the Nestablished e5pertsN to conclude that Nthis fascinating manifestation of 6 7 infectionN, is not caused by 6 7 infection'

!nother common outcome is that 36 74 e5perts ad#ise reHection of our papers for no scientific reason' Dor e5ample, in 2000 %e submitted a paper on antibody testing to the nternational Oournal of S,D and ! DS' Please note that not a single scientific fact addressed by us in this paper is mentioned let alone discussed or refuted'

>,)8>!, F>!+ OF@8>!+ FD S,D A ! DS

8efereeMs 8eport

Author: ) Papadopulos*)leopulos Title: !re N6 7N antibodies caused by a retro#iral infection= Manuscript >o2 0:21; Please type comments for transmission to author on this sheet2 S $> * >F,

Dr' 7alendar D' ,urner and se#eral of the other authors are members of the NPerth groupN of N6 7 E ! DS dissidentsN, The 1erth 2roup #rgues 3http:/ /www.theperthgroup.com4: ' ,hat ! DS and all the phenomena inferred as N6 7N are induced by changes in cellular redo5 brought about by the o5idati#e nature of substances and e5posures common to all the ! DS ris& groups ' ,hat the cessation of e5posure to o5idants andEor use of anti*o5idants %ill impro#e the outcome of ! DS patients' ' ,hat ! DS %ill not spread outside the original ris& groups ,hat the pharmacological data pro#e !9, cannot &ill N6 7N and !9, is to5ic to all cells and may cause some cases of ! DS' ,his paper discusses 6 7 antibody tests and the authors conclude that there is no scientific basis for the claim that 6 7 antibody detection is specific for infection %ith a retro#irus' )ssentially most of the arguments in this paper are published on their %ebsite and some of it has actually been published in #arious scientific Hournals' ,hese are e5treme and uncon#entional #ie%s' ,he use of e#idence is highly selecti#e and thin& misleading' do not thin& that there is any merit in further recycling of this material in the nternational Oournal of S,D and ! DS'

<' 1ou said2 3The! highlight legitim#te scientific uncert#inties within A(*S rese#rch #s e+idence for incompetence or worse. So the f#ct th#t '() p#thogenesis ,nowledge e+ol+es o+er time is twisted in # w#! th#t s#!s" 56ell" !ou were wrong" therefore !ou must #lw#!s &e wrong. 4 ,he problem is not scientific uncertainties but that there has ne#er been any published proof that 36 74 causes ! DS irrespecti#e of the mechanism' ,hat is, it has ne#er been pro#ed that 36 74 induces immune deficiency ?destroys the ,: cellsC %hich in turn leads to the clinical syndrome' !t the beginning of the ! DS era, e#idence rapidly accumulated that some of the patients %ith
;

! DS or at ris& of ! DS, had lo%er than normal numbers of ,: cells' ,he same patients %ere sho%n to ha#e a higher than normal number of ,. cells' t %as postulated then that the decrease in ,: cells %as due to their &illing by 36 74' Since then an army of researchers spared no effort trying to determine the mechanism of 36 7 pathogenesis4' ,his postulate is astonishing' +et us remind oursel#es ?mainly for the benefit of others as you being an immunologist &no% thisC of the history of the ,:E,. cells' n 1-<:, a group of researchers obser#ed that %hen normal lymphocytes %ere cultured %ith ,* cells from hypogammaglobulinaemic patients in the presence of P0M, the synthesis of immunoglobulin ?antibodiesC by the normal lymphocytes %as depressed by .:L to 100L' ,hey put for%ard the hypothesis Nthat patients %ith common #ariable hypogammaglobulinemia ha#e circulating suppressor , lymphocytes that inhibit B*lymphocyte maturation and immunoglobulin synthesisN'1: By 1-.0 it %as accepted that there are t%o subsets of ,* lymphocytes, the ,. subset ?,*suppressor cellsC %hich 3suppresses the proliferate response of other ,*cells and B*cells immunoglobulin production and secretion4 and the ,: cells ?helper subsetsC %hich produce 3a #ariety of helper factors that induce B cells to secrete immunoglobulin and all lymphocyte subpopulations ?,,B and nullC to proliferateN' 1; By the beginning of the ! DS era, e#idence e5isted that under certain conditions ?%hich are satisfied in 36 74 cultures and ! DS patientsC there is a phenotypic change of ,: cells to ,. cells, a fact &no%n to both Montagnier and $allo'16 n 1-.: Montagnier and his colleagues %rote2 Nthis phenomenon Jdecrease in ,: cellsK could not be related to the cytopathic effectN of 6 7 but is Nprobably due to either modulation of ,: molecules at the cell membrane or steric hindrance of antibody*binding sitesN'1<, 1. n 1-.3 9agury ?one of $alloPs collaboratorsC and his colleagues %rote2 3N,esting functional properties %e found that >( acti#ity %as mediated not only by ,10Q cells but also, in some cases, by ,:Q and ,.Q cells' Moreo#er, ,"$D production, %hich may reflect helper acti#ity, %as mediated not only by ,:Q cells' Fnly the cytoto5ic ?",+C acti#ity seems to be confined to the ,. phenotype' ,hus, it appears that , antigens, %hich seemed to be molecular mar&ers of differentiation, are not mar&ers for terminal differentiation and do not al%ays reflect defined functional propertiesN'1- n 1-.. $Rran MRller ?an immunologist from the @ni#ersity of Stoc&holmC %rote2 N,here are three good and se#eral not so good reasons for /uestioning the e5istence of suppressor , cells as a separate , cell subpopulationN'20 "ommenting on MRllerMs editorial, researchers from the Pasteur nstitute %rote2 N t follo%s that the difference bet%een these t%o cell populations concerns their repertoires and, in conse/uence, their maturati#e or acti#ation stages, possibly their differential mechanisms of acti#ation'''!s discussed here, e#en primary populations of lymphocytes may follo% functional rules in #itro that depart substantially from those operating in #i#o, and cells may loo& and function differently simply because they are either connected or isolated' n essence, and this is both more interesting and difficult to approach, it seems una#oidable that systems ?such as the immuneC are more than the sum of isolated clonal acti#itiesN' 21 n a 1-.1 commentary in JAMA entitled2 NF(,3, F(,:, and all thatN, one reads2 N,he ,* and B*cell measurers*ha#ing run through the sic&, the elderly, the

young, the pregnant, the berea#ed*had finally run out of diseases' )ach condition %as the subHect of many reportsS so that no%, to gi#e but one e5ample, %e can conclude %ith some assurance that ,*cell numbers are up, do%n, or unchanged in old fol&sI'!nd no% itMs starting all o#er again, this time %ith ,*cell subsets' ,hin&, dear reader, and grie#e, dear editor, about ho% many in#estigators are at this #ery moment measuring ,*cell subsets in systemic lupus erythematosus, in rheumatoid arthritis, in solid tumours ?all different sorts * one article for eachC, in lymphomas, in pneumonia, after surgery, after burns, after trauma, in asthma, in cirrhosis, in "rohnMs disease, in glomerulonephritis, in myositis, in familial Mediterranean fe#er, in leprosy, in Dengue fe#er, after cardiac transplants, and so on' Mean%hile others %ill be out measuring blac&s, %hites, Frientals, nati#e !mericans, men, %omen, children, babies, old fol&, astronauts, and laboratory technicians' "ells %ill be garnered and measured from blood, from lungs, from &idneys, from li#er, and from "SD and ascitic fluidI0hat can be done to stanch the anticipated outflo%=I0e might legitimately as&, %hy fight= 0hy not let us unimaginati#e immunologists publish to our heartMs content= %ill ignore the ob#ious economic arguments for fear that they might be ta&en seriously' My strongest argument is this2 Measurement of , and B cells and their subsets in diseases has no clinical meaningI,here is a feeling about that ,* and B*cell numbers mean something, an immunologic e/ui#alent of an S$F, le#el or creatinine clearanceI>onimmunologists ha#e naturally assumed that any subHect occupying so much Hournal space must be rele#ant in some %ay T a logical but incorrect assumptionN'22 )5perimental depletion of ,: cells in mice used as models for systemic lupus erythematosus in humans did not lead to increased fre/uencies of neoplasms, nor did mice Nde#elop infectious complications, e#en though they %ere housed %ithout special precautionsN' n fact mice %ith lo% ,: cell numbers had Nprolonged lifeN' 23 t is also of interest that despite the indispensable role attributed to ,: and ,. lymphocytes in antibody production ?helper and suppressor respecti#elyC, ! DS patients in the presence of lo% numbers of ,: cells and high numbers of ,. cells, ha#e increased le#els of serum gammaglobulins, and are not hypogammaglobulinaemic as might be e5pected' !lso, although human umbilical cord ,*cells produce suppressor factors?sC, the factor?sC is produced by ,.* ?,:QC not ,.Q cells2: !ccording to the N6 7N theory of ! DS, the diseases %hich constitute the ac/uired immune deficiency syndrome, the S in ! DS, are the conse/uence of the lo% ,: cell number, ?! DC, induced by N6 7N' 6o%e#er, according to the same 36 74 e5perts these diseases continue to appear e#en after 6!!8, induces Nimmune restorationN but no% the diseases are N mmune 8estoration Disease ? 8DC4, not ! DS' 2; ,hus, ,: and ,. cells do not seem to possess the generally accepted functions attributed to them'16 .' 1ou said2 3Science e+ol+es" &ut the deni#lists #re stuc, in # time w#rp. The! cherr! pic, wh#t suits them. 1referenti#l cit#tion is wh#t it$s ,nown #s in the technic#l l#ngu#ge. The! ignore the much gre#ter weight of contr#dictor! e+idence #nd the! wilfull! or incompetentl! misrepresent the inform#tion reported in indi+idu#l p#pers. The 1erth group did this in N#ture in # stud! on m#tern#l" mother.to.child" tr#nsmission in Rw#nd#.4

<

n our publications %e ha#e cited hundreds upon hundreds of papers published by 36 74 e5perts' ,he fact is that %hen you %rite a paper and more so %hen you %rite a letter, you ha#e to limit the references to the most crucial regarding that subHect' n the case of the use of ne#irapine to inhibit mother* to*child transmission, the 8%anda study is considered to be the definiti#e study' ,he Nature correspondence is based on a large, detailed, critical analysis of mother*to*child transmission in %hich hundreds of references are cited': 0e %rote a response to Nature in regard to a comment published in Nature that the letter had misrepresented the 8%anda data but Nature %ould not publish this response' t is posted at %%%'theperthgroup'comE+!,)S,E$effen'html -' 1ou said2 3/ut the deni#lists don$t pu&lish #n! of their own wor,. The! simpl! critici7e" ignor#ntl!" the wor, of scientists who do. 4 Fur publications contain a lot of original ideas and %or&' !lthough it is not necessary for us to perform e5periments based on our ideas, %e %ould ha#e preferred to do them' 6o%e#er, due to lac& of funds %e ha#e been unable to perform our original e5periments' Science has progressed on the basis of ne% ideas and theories being presented many times by either one person or a group of people and then e5periments being carried out by either another person or group of people' n fact, some of the most important progressions in science %ere based on ideas of people %ho ne#er performed the e5periments themsel#es' 10' 1ou said2 3Now wh#t #re their core &eliefs8 The core &eliefs tend to &e somewh#t different &ec#use different su&.cli0ues of deni#lists differ in wh#t the! choose to emph#si7e. ne of the more &i7#rre episodes w#s the 1erth group cl#ims th#t '() simpl! does not e%ist9 where#s *ues&erg #ccepts th#t '() e%ists &ut &elie+es it$s h#rmless. So when the 1erth group put out # competition on their we&site with # c#sh pri7e for #n!one who could pro+e th#t '() e%ists *ues&erg #ctu#ll! cl#imed the price. (t gets th#t sill!.4 ,here are many biGarre episodes in 36 74E! DS research but our scientific disagreement %ith Peter Duesberg is not one of them' n our publications %e ha#e ne#er claimed that 36 7 simply does not e5ist4' 0e ha#e claimed that the presently a#ailable data does not pro#e its e5istence' 0e ha#e ne#er 3put out a competition on4 our %ebsite offering 3a cash priGe for anyone %ho could pro#e that 6 7 e5ists4' n fact, at that time ?1--6C %e did not e#en ha#e a %ebsite' ,he priGe %as offered by Continuum magaGine, not by the Perth $roup' 0hen Peter Duesberg claimed it, %e challenged his claim' Peter claimed that the e5istence of the 36 7 infectious molecular clone4 pro#es that 36 74 e5ists' 6o%e#er, he ne#er ga#e any e#idence for the e5istence of the 36 7 infectious molecular clone4' PeterPs argument that the e5istence of the 36 7 infectious molecular clone4 pro#es that 36 74 e5ists %as also used by Brian Doley in the ritis! Medical Journal Fnline debate' +i&e Peter, Brian Doley ultimately %as not able to present any e#idence for the e5istence of the

36 7 infectious molecular clone4' Fur repeated re/uest to Brian Doley remains unans%ered' So %ere many other repeated re/uests including pro#iding references %ith e#idence %hich demonstrates the specificity of the 36 74 antibody tests, se5ual transmission of 36 74 and that the 36 74 proteins are coded by the 36 74 gag, pol and en# genes' 0hen it %as seen that neither Brian Doley nor any other participant in the debate could pro#ide such e#idence, instead of coming to their rescue by pro#iding such e#idence, 0ain* 6obson, Brian Doley and you attempted to stop the debate' @ltimately you succeeded' +et us gi#e you a fe% of the 3biGarre episodes4 in 36 74E! DS research2 ?aC Fne of the most important morphological characteristics of retro#iruses is the presence of spi&es ?&nobsC on the particlePs surface' ,here is agreement among all the proponents of the 36 74 theory of ! DS that the N6 7N particlesM spi&es ?gp120C is absolutely necessary for infecti#ity' n 1--< you %rote2 N6 7 infection of "D:Q cells is initiated by an interaction bet%een its surface glycoprotein gp120, and the cellular antigen "D:QN' 26 n MontagnierMs boo& "irus2< ?2000C one reads2 NParticles of 6 7 are shaped li&e little spheres, each %ith roughly eighty rounded proHections shaped li&e pegs' )ach peg contains three or four molecules of a large protein, gp120, %hich has a strong affinity for the receptors ?no% called "D:C or ,: lymphocytesN' n 1--1, you %rote2 NFn the #irus surface, mature gp120Egp:1 heterodimers are grouped together into oligo*meric spi&es that are clearly #isible in electron micrographsN' 26 n the 200; "onstantine et al boo&, one reads2 3,he gp120 antigen, e5pressed from instruction from one of the en# genes, is a maHor component of the <2 &nobs or spi&es of the e5ternal en#elope of 6 7*1I4 ,o date, nobody has produced electron*micrographic ?)MC e#idence for the e5istence of such spi&es on the 36 74 particles'%%%'theperthgroup'comE+!,)S,E9hu>ature8eHected'doc n a paper you published in 1--22. you said the spi&es are lost #ery rapidly after they are released, that immediately after release there are appro5imately 0'; spi&esEparticle' But you also added2 N t %as possible that structures resembling &nobs might be obser#ed e#en %hen there %as no gp120 Jspi&esK present, i'e' false positi#esN' ?bC n the early 1-<0s $allo reported re#erse transcription in normal uninfected but mitogenically stimulated lymphocytes' 2- Barre*Sinoussi and "hermann, the principle and second authors of the 1-.3 paper in %hich the e5istence of N6 7N %as claimed to be pro#en, %ere fully a%are that re#erse transcription is present in normal cells' 30, 31 n 1-<;, an nternational "onference on )u&aryotic D>! polymerases defined D>! polymerase gamma as the cellular enGyme %hich Ncopies A n .dT15 %ith high efficiency but does not copy D>! %ellN' 32 1et in 1-.3 transcription of A n .dT15 in a stimulated culture containing lymphocytes from a patient at ris& of ! DS, %as considered proof for N6 7N isolationU ,he detection of the same re#erse transcriptase acti#ity in a consecuti#e culture %as considered proof for N6 7N transmission' !t present most, if not all, molecular biologists are of the opinion that a significant part of the human genome %as obtained by re#erse transcription of 8>! into D>!'
-

>o%adays, the non*specificity of re#erse transcriptase is &no%n e#en to the general public in the form of magaGine reports e#aluating the in#estment potential of biotechnology stoc&s ?PachacG M' >o need to be phased, #!ares Maga$ine, Debruary 2001, p 2.*32C' 1et in a completely 3off the %all4 manner, N6 7N e5perts are still using re#erse transcription to pro#e N6 7N infection and e#en to /uantify it as one can read in the 200; "onstantine et al boo&' cC !ccording to Montagnier, Nanalysis of the proteins of the #irus demands mass production and purification' t is necessary to do thatN' 33 n 1-.3 Montagnier and in 1-.: $allo claimed to ha#e obtained NpurifiedN N6 7N but did not publish proof for their claims' n his 3purified #irus4, Montagnier found a p2; protein ?no% &no%n as p2:C, %hich reacted %ith his patientPs serum and claimed that this is specific 36 74 protein' 6e also found a p:; protein %hich also reacted %ith his patientPs serum but said that this protein is cellular actin ?the molecular %eight of actin is :1,000C' n 1-.:, in his 3purified #irus4, $allo found both of these proteins to react %ith ! DS patientsP sera and claimed that p:1 %as the most specific 36 74 protein' n 1--< in an inter#ie% Montagnier ga#e to the Drench Oournalist DHamel ,ahi, he stated2 N repeat %e did not purifyN' N$allo=I donMt &no% if he really purified' donMt belie#e soN' n fact Montagnier admitted that in %hat he and his colleagues called Npurified #irusN, e#en after N8oman effortN, they could not find any particles %hich e#en had morphological characteristics of retro#iruses' 30e sa% some particles but they did not ha#e the morphology typical of retro#iruses' ,hey %ere #ery differentN'33 ,his is as good a proof as anybody can get that MontagnierMs p2: %as not an N6 7N protein or a protein of any other retro#iruses' 1et MontagnierMs p2: is considered to be the most specific N6 7N protein' 8eaction of antibodies directed against this protein %ith antigens in cell cultures is considered proof for N6 7N isolationU !ccording to the 200; "onstantine et al boo&, 3,he best antigen preparations to detect established 6 7 infection are #iral lysatesI4' n 1--< some of the best 36 74 e5perts ac&no%ledged that the V7irusP 3used for biochemical and serological analysis or as an immunogen is fre/uently prepared by centrifugation through sucrose gradients4 and that in no study 3has the purity of the #irus preparation been #erified4' 10, 3: n 2003 %e as&ed $allo for e#idence of 36 7 purification' 6e responded 3Montagnier subse/uently published many )M pictures of purified 6 7 particles, as, of course, %e did in our first papers' 1ou ha#e no need of %orry' ,he e#idence is ob#ious and o#er%helming4' "harles Dauguet, the Pasteur nstitute electron*microscopist, %as inter#ie%ed by DHamel ,ahi in December 200;' 6e said that at no time did they ha#e purified #irus, all he could find in the 3purified #irus4 %as 3cellular debris4' ?dC !ccording to many N6 7N e5perts, including yourself, Ngp120 and gp:1 JareK produced by clea#age of a common precursor gp160N %hich is an N6 7N protein present in the infected cells but not the #iral particles' ,hat is gp160 cannot be present in the purified #irus' Despite this, %hen Npurified #irusN is tested against ! DS sera, gp160 bands are obser#ed' !ccording to researchers from >e% 1or& this is because gp120 and gp160 are oligomers of gp:1,3; and not distinct N6 7N proteins' ,hey stressed2

10

NI'some clinical specimens may ha#e been identified erroneously as seropositi#e, on the assumption that these bands reflected specific reacti#ity against t%o distinct #iral components and fulfilled a criterion for true or probable positi#ity' ,he correct identification of these bands %ill affect the standards to be established for 0estern Blot positi#ityS it may necessitate the reinterpretation of published resultsN' >obody too& any notice of this %arning' n fact according to the !frican criteria for a positi#e 0B, t%o glycoprotein bands ?t%o of gp:1, gp120, gp160C are considered proof for infection' n other %ords in !frica anybody %ho has antibodies %hich react %ith actin is considered infected %ith N6 7N' >either has anybody ta&en notice of the %or& by researchers from the ! DS #accine program, >ational "ancer nstitute, %ho label all the proteins %ith molecular %eights higher than 31,000 as cellular proteins, 10, 36 including p:1 as actin' nstead many N6 7N e5perts including yourself, dedicate a great deal of time to study the N6 7 en#elopeN protein gp:1, gp120 and gp160' ?eC n the early 1-<0s $allo as %ell as other retro#irologists found that the 8>! of retro#iral particles contained Npoly?!C regions and hypothesised Ntherefore that poly?!C might be a diagnostic property of tumour #irusesN ?retro#irusesC, despite the fact that ample e#idence e5ists %hich sho%s that poly?!C is not specific to retro#irus, and $allo %as a%are of it' 3< ndeed, Npoly?!C se/uences %ere found in both messenger 8>! ?m8>!C and their nuclear precursorsIpoly?!C se/uences pro#ided that basis for a long*sought route for m8>! purificationN'3. 1et, from their 3purified #irus4, MontagnierPs and $alloPs groups selected a number of poly?!C*8>! fragments and claimed this 8>! %as the 36 74 genome' n the BMO Fnline debate, Brian Doley admitted that the poly?!C*8>! is not specific to retro#iruses and that the 36 74 genome %as a poly?!C*8>! originating from the 3purified #irus4 but %as not able to produce e#idence for purification' 6o%e#er, he insisted that this poly?!C*8>! %as 36 7 8>!4 as pro#en by the e5istence of the 36 7 infectious molecular clone4' But he %as unable to gi#e us not e#en a single reference containing e#idence for the e5istence of the 36 7 infectious molecular clone4' Fur repeated re/uest2 30ould Brian Doley please gi#e us a summary of the e#idence ?not Hust the titleC of a study as %ell as the e#idence from a fe% confirmatory studies %here the e5istence of an 3infectious molecular clone4 ?as defined by Brian DoleyC of 36 7*14 has been pro#en' f Brian Doley fails to respond %ith his summaries and references then %e must conclude his %hole argument for the e5istence of 36 7*14, based upon the e5istence of the 36 7*1 infectious molecular clone4, collapses'4 * remains unans%ered' ?fC ,he main and absolutely necessary property of se5ually transmitted agents is bi*directionality' ,hat is, transmission from the passi#e ?semen recipientC to the acti#e ?semen donorC partner and #ice #ersa' n 1-.:, $allo %rote2 3Ff eight different se5 acts, seropositi#ity correlated only %ith recepti#e anal intercourseIand %ith manual stimulation of the subHectPs rectum ?recepti#e 3fisting4CIand %as in#ersely correlated %ith inserti#e anal intercourse4'3- ,%o years later they confirmed their 1-.: findings2 3 n this analysis, only recepti#e rectal intercourse, douching, rectal bleedingI %ere significant predictors ?pW'0;C of anti*6,+7* positi#ityI0e found no

11

e#idence that other forms of se5ual acti#ity contributed to the ris&4' :0 n a 1--: re#ie% of all the maHor studies conducted in gay men the authors concluded2 3?1C unprotected anogenital recepti#e intercourse poses the highest ris& for the se5ual ac/uisition of 6 7*1 infectionS ?2C anogenital inserti#e intercourse poses the highest ris& for the se5ual transmission of 6 7*1 infectionS ?3C there is mounting epidemiologic e#idence for a small ris& attached to orogenital recepti#e se5,I?:C se5ual practices in#ol#ing the rectum and the presence of ?ulcerati#eC S,D facilitate the ac/uisition of 6 7*1S ?;C no or no consistent ris& for the ac/uisition of 6 7*1 infection has been reported regarding other se5ual practices such as anogenital inserti#e intercourse and oroanal se5I4':1 Since only the passi#e partner de#elops a positi#e 36 74 antibody test ?ac/uires 36 74C, the follo%ing /uestions arise2 6o% is it possible to claim that 36 74 is se5ually transmitted= 6o% is it possible to claim that tens of millions of people ha#e been infected by heterose5ual se5= 0hy the passi#e partner in a gay relationship cannot infect the acti#e partner, but a %oman can infect her heterose5ual male partner= )#eryone %ill agree that pregnancy is a se5ually ac/uired phenomenon and not a se5ually transmitted phenomenon' ,hat is, the acti#e partner can ma&e pregnant the passi#e partner, the passi#e partner can ne#er ma&e pregnant the acti#e partner' So doesnPt it follo% that 36 74 ?a positi#e antibody testC is also a se5ually ac/uired phenomenon= ?gC n a prospecti#e study published in 2003, researchers of the !msterdam "ohort study, analysed N"D: and "D. , cell acti#ation mar&er e5pression in 102 indi#iduals %ith &no%n serocon#ersion data, before and after serocon#ersion' ,hey concluded2 3,his study demonstrated for the first time that lo% preserocon#ersion numbers of "D: , cells and increased le#els of immune acti#ation %ere associated %ith an increased ris& to de#elop ! DS after serocon#ersion''' n conclusion, our data sho% that chronic immune acti#ation and the siGe of the "D: , cell pool are critical factors in 6 7*1 pathogenesis, e#en %hen measured before serocon#ersionN':2 ,he authors from the Multi"enter ! DS "ohort Study concluded 3,hese data suggest that greater se5ual acti#ity follo%ing establishment of 6 7*1 infection leads to e5posure to promoters or co* factors that argument ?or determineC the rate of progression to ! DS4' :3 Since immune deficiency before infection is critical for the de#elopment of ! DS and after infection factors other than 36 74 augment ?or determineC the rate of progression to ! DS, %ould you please tell us %hat role does 36 74 infection play in the causation of ! DS= ?hC By definition, 37irions Jof the family RetroviridaeK are spherical, en#eloped and .0T100 nm in diameter4':: !ccording to $elderblom 3,he Damily of retro#iruses are 3en#eloped #iruses %ith a diameter of 100*120 nm budding at cellular membranes' "ell released #irions contain condensed inner bodies ?coresC and are studded %ith proHections ?spi&es, &nobsCN' :; Before the ! DS era, retro#irologists %ere fully a%are that not all the particles %hich ha#e the morphological characteristics of retro#iruses are infectious, that is, they are #iruses' n 1-<6 $allo %rote2 3#irus*li&e

12

particles morphologically and biochemically resembling type*" #irus but apparently lac&ing the ability to replicate, ha#e been fre/uently obser#ed4':6 ,here are a fe% reports of 36 74 particles in ! DS patients, all from lymph nodes' ,he first %as published in 1-.: by researchers from 8oyal Perth 6ospital':< ,hey ha#e repeatedly pointed out that %hat they ha#e seen %ere 3#irus*li&e4 particles' 6o%e#er, there are significant steps in sho%ing these 3#irus*li&e4 particles are indeed #irus and that this #irus is indeed 36 74' >e#ertheless, this is still cited as the first paper to ha#e pro#en the e5istence of 36 74 particles in vivo' n none of the fe% )M in #i#o studies %ere controls used' n the only )M study, either in vivo or in vitro in %hich suitable controls %ere used and in %hich e5tensi#e blind e5amination of controls and test material %as performed, particles indistinguishable from N6 7N %ere found in 1.E20 ?-0LC of ! DS as %ell as in 13E1; ?.<LC of non*! DS related lymph node enlargements' ,his led the authors to conclude2 N,he presence of such particles do not, by themsel#es indicate infection %ith 6 7N' :. Durthermore, although it is claimed that there are ! DS patients %hich ha#e a million particles per ml of blood, to date nobody has published )M data to pro#e such claims' !t present, most 36 74 e5perts consider 36 74 to be a +enti#irus' ,hat is, particles of 100 nm to 120 nm, cone*shaped core, ha#ing lateral bodies and surface studded %ith spi&es' ,here is not one single study, either in vitro or in vivo, %ith e#idence of the e5istence of particles ha#ing all these morphological characteristics' Many 36 74 researchers ha#e found particles in cultures %ith diameters less than 100 nm or larger than 120 nm' 10, :- ,he a#erage diameter of the 36 74 particles reported in the Bess et al paper %as 23:nm' n 2003, (uGnetso# et al %rote2 3!mong the particles displayedI%ere some that %ere much smaller, on the order of .0 to 100 nm in diameter, and some that %ere much larger, on the order of 160 to 2:0 nm in diameter4 ha#ing a myriad of core types including no core at all' ;0 f the particles of 100 * 120 nm, found in the 36 74 infected cultures, are 36 74, %hat is the origin of and %hat are the other particles= n his 1-.3 paper, Montagnier stated that the 36 74 particles %ere a 3typical type " 8>! tumor #irus4,;1 so did $allo in 1-.:';2 n his boo& "irus Montagnier said that by Oune 1-.3 he considered 36 74 to be a +enti#irus' n 1-.: he said that 36 74 is a type D particle' 1< !t present, most 36 74 e5perts consider 36 74 to be a +enti#irus' 6o%e#er, in 2003, (uGnetso# et al said that the 36 74 particles 3are #irtually indistinguishable from #irions of Mu+7I4 T a type " particle' n their 200; boo&, "onstantine et al %rote2 3,he +enti#irinae ?lenti#irusesC are comple5 type D*type #iruses that include the human pathogenic 6 7 #irusesI4' . 0ould you please tell us the precise ta5onomical classification of the particle 6 7 e5perts claim to be the cause of ! DS= !ccording to Montagnier2 3it is tuberculosis that constitutes the greatest public health problem today2 1'< billion people ha#e latent infections of Mycobacterium tuberculosis ?the bacillus that causes tuberculosisC, %hile

13

eight million are acti#ely infected'42< N,uberculosis &ills more people than any other single disease * almost 3 million in 1--0N' ;3 !ccording to researchers from the @S! and the ndian "ouncil of Medical 8esearch, in ndia, a Ncommunity %ith pre*e5isting endemic diseases such as tuberculosis and diarrhoea disease ma&es the clinical diagnosis of ! DS difficultN';: Before the ! DS era it %as &no%n that2 N n ,B as %ell as in lepromatous leprosy, an immunosuppressi#e state %ill fre/uently de#elop in the host' ,his state is characterised by , lymphopenia %ith a decreased number of , helper cells and an in#erted ,*helperE,*suppressor cell ratio''' mmunosuppression induced by the infection %ith M%tuberculosis can persist for life, e#en %hen the ,B is not progressi#eN' ;; n 1--: )sse5 and his associates presented e#idence %hich sho%s that 6:'-L of leprosy patients and 23'1L of their contacts tested positi#e by t%o different )+ S!s' ,hey also sho%ed that .3'6L of patients and 6:'-L of contacts had 3indeterminate4 0B' n fact the 0B patterns satisfied all the criteria for a positi#e 0B test including the !ustralian criteria %hich at that time %as the most stringent' ,hey %ere said to be 3indeterminate4 because they had only one glycoprotein band, gp:1 and thus did not satisfy the 06F !frican criterion %hich is t%o of 3three4 glycoproteins ?gp:1, gp120, gp160C' ,he presence or absence of gp120 and gp160 does not depend on the presence or absence of antibodies directed against them but on ho% the 0B strips are made' 3; Durthermore, according to the "onstantine et al boo& on page 1-< one reads2 3 t may be noted also that persons %ith en#elope reacti#ity only are rarely found to be infected %ith 6 7 in some populations'4 )sse5 et al performed e5periments in order to determine the reason?sC for the 3indeterminate4 results' ,hey concluded2 3F#erall, this data suggests that +!M Jlipoarabinomannan, %hich is also present in other Mycobacteria including M% tuberculosis'K or P$+* Jphenolic glycolipid K antibodies can bind to 6 7*1 proteins and cause false*positi#e reacti#ityIFur obser#ation of cross*reacti#ity bet%een +!M, and to a lesser e5tent P$+* , %ith 6 7*1 antigens suggest that 6 7*1 )+ S! and 0B results should be interpreted %ith caution %hen screening indi#iduals infected %ith M% tuberculosis or other mycobacterial species' )+ S! and 0B may not be sufficient for 6 7 diagnosis in ! DS*endemic areas of "entral !frica %here the pre#alence of mycobacterial diseases is /uite high'4;6 1et on the basis of these tests ?or no test at all by the Bangui definitionC %e are all led to belie#e by the 36 74 e5perts that the de#eloping %orld Nbears more than -0L of the global burden of 6 7 infectionN and that N,uberculosis ?,BC is the leading cause of death %orld%ide among people %ith 6 7N'? Lancet )ditorial Ouly 11, 1--., p122C' )#en if such tests %ere to be performed, gi#en the fact that neither )+ S! nor 0B are sufficient to diagnose 36 74 infection in ,B patients, %here is the proof that N! DSN patients %ith ,B, Nthe leading cause of death %orld%ide among people %ith 6 7N, are indeed infected %ith this retro#irus= )#en if the antibody tests %ere 100L specific and all ,B patients %ere tested and found positi#e, %here is the proof that since the ! DS era the maHor precipitating cause of ,B is 36 74 and not still drug

1:

abuse,;< Ncro%ding, poor sanitation, lac& of proper hygieneN ;; or Nmalnutrition and general lac& of medical ser#icesN, %hich according to )sse5, contribute to Ndiarrhoea, tuberculosis and other common !frican diseases that signify ! DSN=;. s it possible that the leading cause of death from ! DS %orld%ide is based on mista&enly identifying M% tuberculosis antibodies for 6 7 antibodies= 11' 1ou said2 3*ues&erg h#s #rgued #nd m#n! people in his cli0ue h#+e #ccepted his +iews on this th#t A(*S is c#used &! poppers" &! drug use" o+er stimul#ted immune s!stems" po+ert! - #n!thing &ut '(). Sp#ce #liens will no dou&t &e # c#use soon.4 0e ha#e put for%ard these ?apart from 3space aliens4C and additional factors as causati#e agents of ! DS e#en before Peter Duesberg e5pressed this #ie%' n fact %e ha#e gi#en a mechanism by %hich these factors induce their pathogenic effects, a theory %hich leads to predictions regarding ! DS pre#ention and treatment' nterestingly, +uc Montagnier, 3the disco#erer of 6 74, little by little, has become an apologist of our o5idati#e theory of ! DS' ;-,
60

12' 1ou said2 3 ne of the +iews is th#t Afric# is different &ec#use Afric# h#s to &e different &ec#use the deni#lists otherwise c#n$t e%pl#in wh! '() h#s ,illed so m#n! people there. (t$s held th#t di#gnostic #ss#!s simpl! don$t wor," which of course isn$t true. The! hold th#t 1:R.&#sed +ir#l lo#d #ss#!s don$t me#sure '()" which of course isn$t true. The det#ils get more #nd more &i7#rre" #nd the!$re often mutu#ll! contr#dictor!.4 ,he antibody tests do not pro#e 36 74 infection any%here in the %orld, not Hust !frica' Describing ! DS in !frica, in his boo& "irus, Montagnier tells ho% a team of researchers led by Peter Piot in 1-.3 diagnosed ! DS in 9aire using 3primiti#e4 means2 3!bout thirty cases had been diagnosed %ith the means a#ailable, %hich %ere primiti#e' ,here %ere as many female patients as male, %hich pro#ed for the first time the diseasePs heterose5ual transmissibility' Piot had #ery carefully &ept the serums of these patients' n late 1-.3, %ith a reliable +!7 J36 74K antibody test ?8 P!C already at our disposal for a number of months, suggested to him that %e blindly loo& for the presence of +!7 antibodies' ?6is serums had code numbers'C Piot enthusiastically agreed' ga#e him the results by telephone2 all the patients %hose ! DS diagnosis had been based on clinical findings and on the decrease in blood lymphocytes tested positi#e for the gag protein of +!7' Piot later told me that it %as the biggest thrill of his career as a researcher'N >ote 3,en patients had V"hronic mucocutaneous 6S7 Jherpes simple5 #irusK infectionP, 1: bilateral interstitial pneumonia V%ith se#ere dyspnoea, unresponsi#e to antibiotics or tuberculostaticsP, 31 oral andEor oesophageal candidiasis and si5 had disseminated (SISince (S has long been endemic in 9aire, only patients %ith fulminant (S %ere included'4 61 ,he sera %ere tested by 8 P! ?radioimmunoprecipitation assay, similar to the 0estern blotC' ,he test %as considered positi#e if a p2: band %as present' ,he p:1 band and also a .:*

1;

&D band %ere not considered diagnostic because N,he :3*&D Jp:1K band and the .:*&D band are cellular contaminants that are immunoprecipitated in all the tested seraN, from both patients and controls' ,hirty t%o ?..LC patients %ere positi#e' So %ere si5 out of 26 ?23LC controls'62 +i&e Montagnier, $allo and his associates also tested !fricans for 36 74 antibodies' 63 Ff ;3 patients %ith 3! DSN, including the first 26 patients reported from 8%anda, N:6 ?.<LC tested positi#e'''6< ?.0LC of .: prostitutes J%ithout any clinical symptomsK and fi#e ?12';LC of :0 and eight ?1;';LC of ;1 healthy controls and blood donors, respecti#elyN, also tested positi#e' N!ll blood donors %ere of good socioeconomic statusN' Sera %hich had one positi#e )+ S! %ere considered as proof for 6 7 infection' J,oday, using an )+ S! type test, %hich cannot be used in !ustralia e#en as a screening test, one single positi#e result %as deemed to be sufficient to estimate that :'; million South !fricans are infected %ith 36 746:K' Sera %hich had a borderline )+ S! %ere further tested %ith the 0B' n the 0B, Nserum samples possessing reacti#ity to 6,+7* J36 74K p:1 andEor p2: %ere scored positi#e4' n 1-.; $allo conducted tests in @ganda' 3,he @gandan serum tested %as primarily from clinically healthy donors randomly selected as controls for Bur&ittPs lymphoma patients on the basis of age, se5, and community' !ll samples %ere collected bet%een !ugust 1-<2 and Ouly 1-<3'4 !ll the samples %ere tested by )+ S! and 0B' 3Ff the <; samples, ;0 of ;; that e5ceeded the cutoff of 2 standard de#iations recogniGed specific #iral bands %ith an o#erall positi#e rate of 66 per cent' ,he most prominent reactions %ere %ith antigens ha#ing molecular %eights of <6(, ;;(, :1(, and 2:(' +ess fre/uently recogniGed antigens had molecular %eights of 6:(, ;-(, 32(, and 1.(' ,hese #alues coincide %ith the pre#iously described molecular %eights of 6,+7* antigens recogniGed by serum from ! DS patients or indi#iduals at ris& for ! DS'4 $allo %as surprised by the high le#el of 3infecti#ity4 and the apparent lac& of ! DS in !frica' 3 f, as %e suspect, the antibody reacti#ities found represent %idespread e5posure or infection by 6,+7* J6 7K, then it must be as&ed %hy the incidence of ! DS in the @gandan population ?and neighbouring 9aireC has gone unnoticed for so longI t is possible that ! DS e5isted in !frican populations %ithout being recogniGed as a separate disease entity4 or 3the #irus detected may ha#e been a predecessor of 6,+7* or is 6,+7* itself but e5isting in a population acclimated to its presence' t further suggests an !frican origin of 6,+7* 4' 6; ,his problem of a #ery high le#el of 3infecti#ity4 and lac& of ! DS in !frica %as 3sol#ed4 by introducing a uni/ue definition for ! DS in !frica, the Bangui ! DS definition and of uni/ue criteria for a positi#e 0B' @nli&e the ! DS definition in the 0est, the 06F Bangui definition for !frica does not re/uire immunological ?,: lymphocyte countC or antibody tests or a specific disease diagnosis but consists largely of symptoms such as %eight loss, diarrhoea, cough and fe#er' Dor e5ample, an !frican %ith diarrhoea, fe#er and persistent cough for longer than one month is, by definition, an ! DS case' !ny 0B in %hich t%o of the 3three4 glycoproteins ?gp:1, gp120, gp160C are reacti#e is considered proof for 36 74 infection' ,his is despite the fact

16

that as far bac& as 1-.1 $allo accepted that antibodies %hich react %ith retro#iral glycoproteins are directed 3against the carbohydrate moieties on the molecule that are introduced by the host cell as a post*transcriptional e#ent, and %hich are therefore cell*specific and not #irus*specificN'66 8egarding the use of the P"8 to pro#e 36 74 infection2 ?aC !ccording to the "D" 3 n adults, adolescents, and children infected by other than perinatal e5posure, plasma #iral 8>! nucleic acid tests should >F, be used in lieu of licensed 6 7 screening tests ?e'g', repeatedly reacti#e enGyme immunoassay4 ?emphasis in originalC'6< n other %ords, the "D" ac&no%ledges that the P"8 test is not as good as the antibody test' ?bC !ccording to Montagnier2 3P"8 is also not reliable because, parado5ically, it is too precise J=sensiti#eK' ndeed, P"8 gene amplification is so sensiti#e that it may cause a false*positi#e result in the blood sample, %hich may contain some of the motherPs infected cells, erroneously indicating infection in the child'42< ?cC Fne group of 36 74 e5perts states 3Plasma #iral J8>!K load tests %ere neither de#eloped nor e#aluated for the diagnosis of 6 7 infection4'6. ?dC 8oche, the company that manufactures the !MP+ "F8 6 7*1 8>! MF> ,F8 test, includes the follo%ing statement in the test &it pac&et insert2 3,he "FB!S !MP+ "F8 6 7*1 MF> ,F8 ,est #1'; is not intended to be used as a screening test for blood or blood products for the presence of 6 7*1 or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of 6 7*1 infection4' By design, the re#erse transcriptase and protease inhibitors do not inhibit transcription of pro#iral D>! into 8>!' 8ather they pre#ent ne% rounds of 3infection4 of uninfected cells by 36 74' Since 3infected4 cells die %ithin a fe% days, and there are no 3ne% infections4 ta&ing place, these drugs should result in a decrease the 36 74 D>!' 0hich means the decrease in 3#iral load4 is indirect, that is, is #ia the decrease in 36 74 D>!' ,his means that any decrease in #iral load should be preceded or at least accompanied by a decrease in 36 74 D>!' 6o%e#er, talian researchers obser#ed a 3dichotomy4 %ith 6!!8,2 3! dramatic drop in the le#els of cell*free #irus in plasma J3#iral load4K and PBM" intracellular transcripts %as obser#ed in all but one patient, %hereas a significant increase in PBM" pro#iral D>! Ioccurred in the maHority of cases4' n fact, no patient had a decrease in #iral D>!' 6- Similar results %ere reported by some of the best !ustralian 36 74E! DS e5perts' <0 ,he purpose in treating %ith 6!!8, is to decrease the 36 74 D>!, yet in reality the opposite is found' n the 200; "onstantine et al boo&, on page 2-3 one reads2 3 n addition to their utility for monitoring 6 7 infection, #iral load measurements can be used to estimate the time until de#elopment of ! DS and to estimated the time until deathI t has been clearly sho%n that 8>! le#els are predicti#e of ris& for progression to ! DS, "D: decline, and death'4 Fn page 2-6 one reads2 3,he maintenance of lo% le#els of #iral 8>! in patients during the course of antiretro#iral therapy results in a decreased ris& of progression to ! DS'4

1<

ndeed, this should be the case if 36 74 is the cause of ! DS, the #iral load tests 3measure 6 74, and 6!!8, results in a decreased ris& of progression to ! DS' 6o%e#er, in a 2006 Lancet paper in#ol#ing o#er 22,000 patients, the authors report a 3parado5ical4 finding' ,hey reported that there %as a 3discrepancy bet%een the clear impro#ementIrecorded for #irological response and the apparently %orsening rates of clinical progression4' ; ,his means either the ris&Ebenefit associated %ith 6!!8, treatment is #ery high or 36 74 is not the cause of ! DS' +et us remind you %hat Montagnier said at the )uropean parliament in 2003 regarding ! DS pathogenesis in !frica2 Montagnier said that the cause of the 3clinical phase of opportunist infections and cancers %hich result in death J! DSK N is principally due to a decline in the numbers of ,: cells' ,he decline in ,: cells is due to their 3propensity to die from apoptosisN' n turn apoptosis is due to 3potent o5idati#e stress4' Significantly, %ith the e5ception of !frican patients, Montagnier did not address the cause of the o5idation in the ! DS ris& groups' n regard to !frican patients he said that the o5idati#e stress 3e5ists e#en in the non*infected indi#iduals because of malnutritionN ?our translation from DrenchC'<1 ,hat is, the cause of ! DS is o5idation, not an infectious retro#irus, and the cause of o5idation in !frican is malnutrition' ,hus %hat 3&illed so many people there4 is po#erty not 36 74' ,his is %hat %e ha#e been ad#ocating from the beginning of the ! DS era' Since Montagnier agrees %ith our o5idati#e theory of ! DS, do you consider him also a dissident= 13' 1ou said2 3'()NET ;<=" # tri#l of single dose ne+ir#pine to pre+ent mother.to.child tr#nsmission in Ug#nd#. 1#perwor, discrep#ncies #rose in this tri#l &ec#use of #dministr#ti+e pro&lems #t rur#l Afric#n sites. ... The conclusions of the tri#l #re scientific#ll! +#lid #nd the! were endorsed &! the (nstitute of Medicine in #n independent e+#lu#tion. /ut :eli# >#r&er et #l. twists the f#cts to m#,e is #ppe#r #s if this import#nt tri#l e0u#tes to Tus,egee st!le #&use" critici7ing" #mongst other things" the l#c, of # pl#ce&o #rm" which is now#d#!s #n ethic#l necessit! not to h#+e # pl#ce&o. >#r&er$s +ersion of e+ents &ecomes #ccepted wisdom in the /oston 2lo&e" the New ?or, &ser+er o+er the p#st few months h#+e simpl! p#rroted her +iews #s if the! h#d merit. 4 ,here are many scientific and methodological problems %ith the 6 7>), 012 trial, paper%or& discrepancies is only a minor problem' ,he po%erpoint presentation is at %%%'theperthgroup'comEP8)S)>,!, F>SEne#ppsn1'ppt 8egarding the absolute necessity of ha#ing a placebo, suffice it to /uote Broo&s Oac&son, the senior author of the 6 7>), 012 trial' 3>o researcher can assess a drugMs effecti#eness %ith scientific certainty %ithout testing it against a placebo' ,hatMs the only %ay %e can &no% for sure if a short course of !9, or ne#irapine is better than nothing'N %%%'hop&insmedicine'orgEhmnES01Efeature'html

1.

1:' 1ou %rote2 3N#nc! 1#di#n$s p#per: N#nc! 1#di#n of U:S> pu&lishes # cl#ssic stud! on heterose%u#l '() tr#nsmission in <@@A. ... A(*S deni#lists though conclude th#t the 1#di#n p#per pro+es th#t '() is not heterose%u#ll! tr#nsmitted #nd contr#dicts the #uthor$s own conclusions #nd to the soci#l science liter#ture. ... N#nc! 1#di#n is here tod#!" or s#id she w#s going to &e here tod#!" #nd she c#n spe#, to this - she$s here - #nd she c#n spe#, to this" how her own p#per is &eing #&used #nd twisted.4 ,his year, the follo%ing correspondence %as conducted %ith Professor Padian2 3As far as & can 'udge, your data does not (rove t!at )&" is !eterose*ually transmitted% Am & +rong in my inter(retation, &f so, +ould you (lease give me some details +!y & am +rong%4 Professor PadianPs response %as2 3-es you are +rong% Read t!e (a(ers% T!e discussion in very t!oroug! in eac!%4 ,he follo% up correspondence %as2 3&n your (ublications, you re(eatedly (ointed out t!at t!e data from cross.sectional studies are not reliable% &n your /001 (ros(ective study you 2observed no seroconversions%%%2% &n your discussion, you also (ointed out t!at 2No transmission occurred among t!e 34 (ercent of cou(les +!o did not use condoms consistently at t!eir last follo+. u( nor among t!e 51 cou(les +!o intermittently (racticed unsafe se* during t!e entire duration of follo+.u(%2 T!is is t!e information +!ic! led me to come to t!e conclusion +!ic! you !ave stated is +rong% & +ould be grateful if you +ould tell me +!at information & am missing%4 Professor Padian did not respond' ,his se/uence of e#ents is typical of 36 74 e5perts' 0hen they are as&ed initial /uestions regarding their research, they respond in a patronising manner' >aturally, their response leads to more /uestions %here %e 3dig deeper4' Daced %ith such /uestions they refuse to respond' t is interesting to note that Professor Padian did not tal& on 3ho% her o%n paper is being abused and t%isted4' She said that 3 scientists need to be trained as to t!eir res(onsibility to 'ournalists and t!eir res(onsibility to ma6e t!eir vie+s 6no+n t!roug! t!e (ublic venues as +ell as scientific venues% I +e7re +or6ing in an anti.science era, and +e !ave our role to (lay '4 Surely, scientists must be a%are of their responsibility to Hournalists but abo#e all as 6o%ard ,emin pointed out VV%hen an e5periment is challenged no matter %ho it is challenged by, itPs your responsibility to chec&' ,hat is an ironclad rule of science, that %hen you publish something you are responsible for it' ' 'e#en the most senior professor, if challenged by the lo%liest technician or graduate student, is re/uired to treat them seriously and consider their criticisms' t is one of the most fundamental as(ects of sciencePP ?emphasis in originalC'<2

1-

1;' 1ou said2 3The! misrepresent their #c#demic credenti#ls to cre#te #n illusion of competence. BThe 1erth group" 1#p#dopulos.Eleopulos #nd Turner" cl#imed to h#+e #c#demic #ppointments #t the Uni+ersit! of 6estern Austr#li#. Th#t$s not the c#se" #nd the!$re now &eing disowned &! the uni+ersit!.4 t is out of our control in regard to ho% people label us' n neither our publications nor on our %ebsite is there a claim that 3Papadopulos*)leopulos and ,urnerIha#e academic appointments at the @ni#ersity of 0estern !ustralia4' ,he #alue of a theory or any other %or& cannot be Hudged on the basis of %hate#er academic credentials or lac& of them the person has' +ast yearPs >obel PriGe for medicine %as gi#en to t%o indi#iduals from 8oyal Perth 6ospital, the oldest and largest teaching hospital in 0estern !ustralia, a gastroenterologist and a pathologist %or&ing in the same department %ith a member of our group' >either of them had academic credentials %hen they performed their %or&S one of them still has no academic credentials' 16' 1ou said2 3Some A(*S deni#lists wor, in &on# fide uni+ersities. Some e+en te#ch students. (f this h#ppens in !our neigh&orhood #s, the uni+ersit! #uthorities wh! the! #llow this #nd then write #&out it. There$s # c#se in :hic#go ( ,now #&out. Science #nd he#lth Courn#lists should t#l, to the editori#l des, #nd letters editors #nd +ice +ers# to ensure th#t A(*S deni#list letters #re spotted on #rri+#l #nd spi,ed" not pu&lished.4 n response %e can do no better than to /uote Dr 8ichard Smith, past editor of the ritis! Medical Journal2 30e should ne#er forget $alileo being put before the in/uisition' t %ould be e#en %orse if %e allo%ed scientific orthodo5y to become the in/uisition'4 6ere is the full te5t of Dr SmithPs response to your attempts to silence us and stop the online BMO debate2 3Sir2 1our >e%s story NMedical Hournal under attac& as dissenters seiGe ! DS platformN ?>ature :26, 21;S 2003C %as a fair report of researchersM obHections to rapid responses being posted on the %ebsite of the ritis! Medical Journal 8 MJ9 by people %ho are sceptical about a lin& bet%een ! DS and 6 7' !s editor of the MJ, ho%e#er, find it disturbing to see scientists arguing for restrictions on free speech' Surely open communication and argument is a fundamental #alue of science= Oohn Milton put the argument better than anybody in 16:3, in his pamphlet Areo(agitica' N$i#e me,N he %rote, Nthe liberty to &no%, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, abo#e all liberties' ''' J0Kho e#er &ne% ,ruth put to the %orse, in a free and open encounter= '''1et is it not impossible that she JtruthK may ha#e more shapes than one ''' J Kf it come to prohibiting, there is not aught more li&ely to be prohibited than truth itselfS %hose first appearance to our eyes, bleared and dimmed %ith preHudice and custom, is

20

more unsightly and unplausible than many errors ''' 0here there is much desire to learn there of necessity %ill be much arguing, much %riting, many opinionsS for opinion in good men is but &no%ledge in the ma&ing'N 0e should ne#er forget $alileo being put before the in/uisition' t %ould be e#en %orse if %e allo%ed scientific orthodo5y to become the in/uisition' Mm not arguing that those %ho doubt the lin& bet%een 6 7 and ! DS are right, but %ant to &eep our threshold for posting rapid responses as lo% as possible' 6o%, Mm legitimately as&ed, does this fit %ith an editorial code ha#e drafted saying2 N)ditors should ta&e all reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish'N My first reaction is that perhaps NaccuracyN is the %rong %ord to use' !s editors %e recei#e thousands of manuscripts containing millions of assertions' 0e canMt possibly chec& e#ery NfactN, and distinguishing fact from opinion is not as straightfor%ard as it sounds' ,he ans%er, thin&, lies in transparency' Fur rapid responses are clearly unfettered debate full of craGy ideas, false logic, and unreadable, mis*spelt prose as %ell as some literary and scientific gems' 0hat you see is %hat you get' n contrast, original articles ha#e been as rigorously peer*re#ie%ed as %e can manage, %ith the recognition that peer re#ie% itself is a deeply fla%ed process' 1our >e%s story states2 N,he dispute crystalliGes the conflict in the nternet era bet%een a HournalMs desire to e5periment %ith open electronic debate, and its fundamental obligation to its readers to pro#ide them %ith authentic information'N donMt agree that there is a conflict' ,he beauty of the electronic %orld is that %e can ha#e no*holds*barred debate alongside greater selecti#ity' Fn our %ebsite you can do a search that includes or e5cludes rapid responses' suggest that those %ho %ant to see the %orld as it is X rather than ho% they %ould li&e it to be X include rapid responses in their search'4<3 Dear Professor Moore, for a long time %e ha#e been proposing a %ay by %hich our #ie%s can be scientifically refuted by our critics' +et us propose it to you personally2 +et us ha#e a scientific debate under the auspices of a scientificEmedical Hournal or uni#ersity of your choice bet%een us and ten 36 74 e5perts again of your choice' ,he outcome to be decided by a panel of independent scientists, preferably >obel PriGe %inners'

8)D)8)>")S

)mail correspondence %ith Professor Moore

21

Dear Professor Moore,

0e attach a response to your recent presentation at the nternational ! DS conference %hich also addresses a fe% other matters'

(ind regards,

) )leopulos 7 ,urner

0e recei#ed the follo%ing reply from Professor Moore'

,urner, 1ou ha#e gone through 21 drafts and a considerable amount of effort to say absolutely nothing that is of any concei#able interest to me' Mm glad you %asted your time though, as communicating %ith me ?or trying toC is harmless, compared to the damage you ! DS denialists do to innocent people you attempt to confuse and thereby cause top be harmed' So, continue to &noc& yourself out, so to spea&' !ll you %ill recei#e from me is my continued contempt, and derision' Oohn Moore'

=========================================================== n response %e emailed bac&

Dear Professor Moore,

,han& you for your speedy reply'

22

1' 1ou %rote2 31ou ha#e gone through 21 draftsI4' Fnce again you are %rong' ,he response %e %rote to you %as all one draft' t started out at Professor Moore1'doc and then Dear Professor Moore2'doc %hen %e added the second half' MS Futloo& appended M1M to the second file because an incoming email of the second file bore the same file name as the one residing on the recei#ing computer'

2' 0hen %e discuss ! DS topics, %e thoroughly in#estigate them' So %e donPt gi#e 3off the cuff4 ans%ers' ,he only reason that %e did not spend as much time responding to your tal& as you thin& is because %e are #ery familiar %ith the data'

3' 1ou %rote2 3Ito say absolutely nothing that is of any concei#able interest to me'4 0hat happened= t is astonishingUU Drom your tal& at the ! DS conference it %as ob#ious you %ere #ery interested in %hat %e are saying' 0hy the sudden change of heart and %hy is %hat %e say of 3no concei#able interest4=

:' 1ou %rote2 3Ias communicating %ith me ?or trying toC is harmless,I4 0hat do you mean by 3trying to4= Do you mean that you did not read our response=

;' 1ou %rote2 3Icompared to the damage you ! DS denialists do innocent people you attempt to confuse and thereby cause to be harmed'4 0hy are you still calling us 3! DS denialists4=

+et us repeat the first point %e made in our original response to you2 3+et us ma&e it clear that %e are not ! DS denialists' ,hat is, %e do not deny that in 1-.1 a syndrome in#ol#ing a high fre/uency of (S and a number of opportunistic infections %as identified in gay men and subse/uently became &no%n as ! DS' 0hat %e are doing and ha#e been doing from the #ery beginning is to /uestion the accepted cause of ! DS and to put for%ard an alternati#e theory for the cause of ! DS %hich has a number of %ell*defined predictions, most of %hich ha#e been satisfied'1

23

Durthermore, %hat is the 3damage4 %e do4= 6o% do %e cause 3innocent peopleIto be harmed4=

6' 1ou %rote2 3!ll you %ill recei#e from me is my continued contempt and derision'4 !s an academic surely you must pursue scientific discussions and donPt your students learn by your e5ample= DonPt you teach your students that science progresses through scientific debate=

Sincerely,

)leni Papadopulos )leopulos

1'

Papadopulos*)leopulos )' +oo&ing bac& on the o5idati#e stress theory of ! DS' "ontinuum 1--.S ;230*3; http2EE%%%'healtoronto'comEo5stress'html'

========================================================== Professor Moore replied

1ou are confusing me for someone %ho is interested in %hat you ha#e to say, and you are confusing yourself for someone %ho merits a more detailed response' (indly correct yourself of those delusional tendencies' despise you and your fello% ! DS denialists, and regard your le#el of Nscientific analysisN as pitiful and laughable'

Oohn Moore

2:

===================================================== 0e replied

Dear Professor Moore,

,han& you for your reply'

0e ha#e been pleading in our scientific publications for someone to produce scientific e#idence %hich pro#es that our #ie%s are %rong including direct re/uests to +uc Montagnier'?30ould Montagnier Please "larify 0hether 6 7 or F5idation By ,he 8is& Dactors s ,he Primary "ause Ff ! DS=4 Medical 6ypotheses ?2006C 6<, 666*66.C

http2EE%%%'theperthgroup'comES" P!P)8SEP$MontFSM62006'pdf

1ou %rote2 3I regard your le#el of 3scientific analysis4 as pitiful and laughable'4

0hy=

1ou %rote2 3 despise you and your fello% ! DS denialistsI4

0hy are you continuing to distort our position regarding ! DS=

+et us repeat the first point %e made in our original response to you2 3+et us ma&e it clear that %e are not ! DS denialists' ,hat is, %e do not deny that in 1-.1 a syndrome in#ol#ing a high fre/uency of (S and a number of opportunistic infections %as identified in gay men and subse/uently became &no%n as ! DS' 0hat %e are doing and ha#e been doing from the #ery beginning is to /uestion the accepted cause of ! DS and to put for%ard an alternati#e theory for the cause of ! DS %hich has a number of %ell*defined predictions, most of %hich ha#e

2;

been satisfied' ?Papadopulos*)leopulos, ) 3+oo&ing bac& on the o5idati#e stress theory of ! DS4 "ontinuum ?1--.C ;?;C, 30*3;C http2EE%%%'theperthgroup'comE"F>, >@@MEloo&ingbac&'html

(ind regards,

)leni Papadopulos*)leopulos

=========================================================== Professor Moore replied

Plead a%ay, but Mll simply ignore your pleas, as %ill any bona fide scientist' Oohn Moore

===========================================================

26