Perth Group response to Sylvia Piccinotti about HIV Isolation

http://www.facebook.com/HouseOfNumbers?v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=40491054861&topic=14240

Valendar Francis Turner 

Response to Silvia Piccinotti from the Perth Group

Sylvia wrote: If you want someone with scientific training to explain to you exactly why the misinformation you have been fed by AIDS denialists is wrong, I am willing to provide explanations.

PG: We look forward to your scientific answers and explanations in regard to our questions below.

Silvia: To isolate a virus, usually what you do is that you get a sample from an infected individual/animal, you then find cells that will grow virus in culture and infect these. These cells then make a huge amount of virus which is released into their liquid growth media. You can collect this media and by a series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy.

PG: Please provide us with the first published and a few confirmatory EM studies which show material devoid of “cell debris” in which “all you are left with is virus” bearing all the morphological characteristics attributed to HIV particles. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


Silvia: If you want to produce virus in the lab on command and in very high titers, usually you will make a DNA construct that you can introduce into cells that contains the entire HIV genome. This will drive the cells to produce millions of HIV particles that are collected as described above.

PG: Please provide us with the first published and a few confirmatory studies where “a DNA HIV construct that you can introduce into cells that contains the entire HIV genome” leads to the appearance of particles which are exactly the same as the particles of the “purified virus” from which the RNA used to produce the DNA originated. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


Sylvia: There used to be a challenge on Peter Duesberg's website where he said he would provide a $1000 reward for an EM picture of isolated HIV virus. I can't seem to find this challenge anymore, but the picture was provided years ago and the challenge met. As you may note, Peter Duesberg doesn't question the existence of HIV, only its relation to infection.

PG: If Peter Duesberg does not question the existence of HIV why would he “provide a $1000 reward for an EM picture of isolated HIV virus”. Please give us the picture “provided years ago”.


Sylvia: In the 1980s, doctors were encountering patients with very low T cell counts and immunodeficiency that was unaccountable with the medical knowledge at the time.

PG: The patients did not have “very low T cell counts”. They had normal T cell counts. What some, but no means all had, were low T4 cell counts. T4 cells were a new subset of T cells discovered not long before the beginning of the AIDS era and which, without any proof, were assumed to play a crucial role in immunity.


Sylvia: Once they came to the conclusion that the disease was of viral origin, they had to isolate the disease causing agent. Luc Montagnier accomplished that feat, but he didn't prove that LAV (or HIV now) causes the disease. All he showed is that you can isolate a novel virus from these patients.

PG: Could you please give us the EM in the Montagnier paper which proves that “by a series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy”.

Sylvia: To prove the novelty of the virus, beyond it causing a new disease you also have to show the virus in itself is new. Electron micrographs are insufficient for that purpose because a lot of viruses look similar (e.g. VSV vs. rabies, HIV vs. SIV, etc.). The best way is to sequence their genes and compare them to known viruses. HIV was compared to known retroviruses such as HTLV and was found to be a new pathogen, never before identified.

PG: To prove the existence of a new (“novelty”) retrovirus first you must:

1. Have proof for the existence of particles bearing all the morphological characteristics of retroviruses.
2. Prove the particles have unique biochemical constituents (proteins and RNA but no DNA).
3. Prove the particles are infectious, that is, the introduction of particles into a cell culture results in the appearance of particles with the identical morphology and biochemical constituents (proteins and RNA) as the parental particles.

The only way to prove the particles have unique (and identical) proteins and RNA is to purify the particles. That is, as you say, by undertaking a “series of centrifugations and filtering remove all cell debris until all you are left with is virus. The presence of high concentrations of virus can be verified by electron microscopy”.

Please provide us with the first and preferably several confirmatory papers which demonstrate the existence of the unique HIV proteins and RNA. Please provide us with a short summary to show how the evidence in at least one of these papers supports your statements.


We assume you accept that the HIV theory of AIDS is predicated on the existence of HIV. When you have provided us with the evidence we have requested, then and only then, can we proceed to discuss its role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.