Alex (Institut Curie),

1) Your reference is not a rebuttal study, which was requested:

‘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."’

2) You are shifting the discussion topic from “HIV strain contamination” to
“host macromolecules”, thereby presupposing the content and character of HIV
strain contamination.

3)  You are merely saying, “Read these books”, followed by ad hominem
comments.  If I were to reply in kind, with “Read these books”, then
nit-pick your spelling (“innoculate”, “Montagne”), etc., the discussion
would diffuse, as perhaps you hope.

Let’s return to the specifics of this discussion.

a) I had posted a study abstract (Bess 1997) that showed ‘purified HIV
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 “not
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 “purified HIV strain”.
 In 1997, Montagnier said, “It was impossible to see what might be in a
concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do
that.”  (Underline is mine.)  www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm

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
www.geocities.com/harpub

------
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
> www.geocities.com/harpub


---
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
www.geocities.com/harpub

----
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 www.geocities.com/harpub
>>
>> ------
>> 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).