July 2007


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:09:56 -0400
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Jim West <[log in to unmask]>
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
To: Alex Dajkovic <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (196 lines)
Alex (Institut Curie) has left the discussion.  I will close with this message.

Because Alex continues to take the ad hominem approach, the topic must be
restated:  HIV strain contamination and its characteristics.

Alex had claimed the contamination is "not pathogenic" but would not cite a
supporting study.  He claimed two books would support him without specifying
page numbers or text.

The study I initially referenced (Bess, 1997, that Alex remarks on below)
does not thoroughly characterize the "substantial" contamination it finds. 
It does not, for instance, look for other viruses.  Alex apparently did not
read the Bess study.

-Jim West

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:21:37 +0200, Alex Dajkovic <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Dear Jim West,
>If one reads the posted abstract, one would realize that the HIV isolate was
>"contaminated" by host macromolecules coming from the cells where the virus
>was cultured. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "immune deficient cell
>line."  Immunity is a property of organisms, not cell lines. Again, explained
>in an introductory immunology book, if one cares to look at one.
>I am leaving this discussion because it is clear to me that there is a lack of
>good will on your part to learn the relevant science.
>On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 21:54:49 -0400, Jim West wrote
>> Alex (Institut Curie),
>> 1) Your reference is not a rebuttal study, which was requested:
>> [UTF-8?]‘The claim that host macromolecules (proteins, DNA, RNA,
>> phospholipids) don't cause disease can be substantiated by
>> consulting any introductory level immunology book. Ivan Roitt's
>> "Essential Immunology" is a good start, but there are many others.
>> For a slightly more advanced treatment you can look in William
>> Paul's "Fundamental [UTF-8?]Immunology."’
>> 2) You are shifting the discussion topic from [UTF-8?]“HIV strain
>> [UTF-8?]contamination” to [UTF-8?]“host [UTF-8?]macromolecules”,
>thereby presupposing
>> the content and character of HIV strain contamination.
>> 3)  You are merely saying, [UTF-8?]“Read these [UTF-8?]books”, followed
>by ad hominem
>> comments.  If I were to reply in kind, with [UTF-8?]“Read these
>[UTF-8?]books”, then
>> nit-pick your spelling [UTF-8?](“innoculate”, [UTF-8?]“Montagne”),
>etc., the
>> discussion would diffuse, as perhaps you hope.
>> [UTF-8?]Let’s return to the specifics of this discussion.
>> a) I had posted a study abstract (Bess 1997) that showed [UTF-8?]‘purified
>> HIV [UTF-8?]strains’ to very impure, and I commented that HIV causation
>> studies are thereby moot.
>> b) You countered with the claim that HIV strain contamination is [UTF-8?]“not
>> [UTF-8?]pathogenic”.
>> c) I requested you support your claim with a study of HIV contaminants.
>> d) You have provided no study.
>> Even you must agree that HIV is a minor component of [UTF-8?]“purified HIV
>> [UTF-8?]strain”. In 1997, Montagnier said, [UTF-8?]“It was impossible to
>> what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was
>> not enough virus to do [UTF-8?]that.”  (Underline is mine.)
>> Procedurally, your rebuttal study should parallel HIV studies; that would
>> mean the inoculation of immune deficient cell lines, etc., using
>> artificially elevated concentrations of strain contaminants.
>> Jim West
>> ------
>> Dear Jim West,
>> The claim that host macromolecules (proteins, DNA, RNA,
>>  phospholipids) don't cause disease can be substantiated by
>> consulting any introductory level immunology book. Ivan Roitt's
>> "Essential Immunology" is a good start, but there are many others.
>> For a slightly more advanced treatment you can look in William
>> Paul's "Fundamental Immunology."
>> It seems that people could also benefit from reading an introductory
>> level virology book.  It is disheartening that comrades who question
>> life and death things like the HIV-AIDS connection don't care to
>> acquire a college level knowledge of immunology and virology.
>> By the way, HIV was first discovered by Luc Montagne at Institut
>> Pasteur in Paris.
>> In struggle for a just world,
>> Alex
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 14:06:00 -0400, Jim West wrote
>> > Alex,
>> >
>> > I had recently posted a study (Bess, 1997) evidencing contamination
>> > of HIV strains, e.g., proteins, amorphous particles, and
>> > "substantial amounts of RNA and DNA".
>> >
>> > You replied with a claim that those contaminants are "not
>> > pathogenic", but you gave no supporting study.
>> >
>> > I then requested a supporting study for your claim.  You replied
>> > again with more claims and no supporting study.
>> >
>> > There is the axiom:  One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
>> >
>> > So I ask again for the study that would support your claim that the HIV
>> > strain contaminants are not pathogenic.
>> >
>> > -Jim West
>> >
>> ---
>> Alex Dajkovic (Institut Curie),
>> I had posted a study evidencing "substantial" contamination of HIV strains.
>> 1)
>> You supply no reference -- for your claim that this contamination is
>> not pathogenic.  Yet the matter is described as vesicles, proteins, nucleic
>> acids, and a wide range of "amorphous particles".
>> The omission is reasonable, as you would need to produce a valid inoculation
>> study of only the contaminating matter, at elevated concentrations
>> (as HIV concentrations are elevated).
>> 2)
>> This discussion is about impure HIV strains, yet you persist with
>> the term "purified virus".
>> -Jim West
>> ----
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:23:37 +0200, Alex Dajkovic <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> >Show me the text that demonstrates that you exist as a verified,
>> >consistent entity.  But seriously, HIV, SIV and various hybrids of the
>> >two have been repeatedly found to be infectious and pathogenic in
>> >animals.  In other words, you take purified virus, innoculate macaques
>> >and the animals become infected with the virus and develop AIDS. This
>> >is how the role of various viral genes in pathogenesis is studied in
>> >animal models. Vesicles are not infectious or pathogenic, no matter how
>> many proteins are sticking out of the membrane.
>> >
>> >I challenge the people who truly believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS in
>> >humans to voluntarily become innoculated with a solid dose of HIV.  If
>> >they are not willing to do that, there is little to discuss.  And if
>> >they are willing to become innoculated with HIV and never develop AIDS
>> >as a result, they will have proven their point.
>> >
>> >Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:56:25 -0400, Jim West wrote
>> >> "HIV" = "AIDS" is a dubious theory because HIV strains from Gallo and
>> >> others were found to be contaminated.
>> >>
>> >> Therefore, the challenge remains for HIV-ers to show the text that
>> >> proves "HIV" exists as a verified, consistent entity.  So far that
>> >> text does not exist.
>> >>
>> >> Abstract, below, forwarded by Jim West
>> >>
>> >> ------
>> >> Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found
>> >> in purified HIV-1 preparations.
>> >>
>> >> Bess JW, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO.
>> >> Program Abstr 4th Conf Retrovir Oppor Infect Conf Retrovir Oppor
>> >> Infect 4th 1997 Wash D C. 1997 Jan 22-26; 4th: 139 (abstract no. 405).
>Alex Dajkovic
>Institut Curie