Does HIV exist?

Does HIV exist?

If you're sure that you know what causes AIDS, think again.  There is no solid evidence that 'HIV, the virus that causes AIDS' even exists.

Robert Gallo's four papers in the May 4, 1984 issue of Science supposedly showed the existence of a retrovirus (now called HIV) that was the cause of AIDS.^1-4  But Gallo's papers certainly did not establish proof that 'HIV' was the cause.⁵   In fact, despite fifteen years of research, at a cost to US taxpayers of over $40,000,000,000.00, the only strong evidence that 'HIV' is the cause of AIDS is a correlation: the fact that most AIDS cases have antibodies associated with 'HIV'.

• 'HIV' does not kill cells in test tubes (in vitro).⁶
• It does not cause AIDS in chimpanzees⁷; a contradiction, since it supposedly came from monkeys⁸.
• It is unethical to inject healthy people with 'HIV' on purpose, but health care workers accidentally exposed do not seem to develop AIDS ⁷.
• Epidemiological studies have never established more than the correlation.

But what is the correlation, really?  Unlike most tests, which actually detect or culture a virus itself, the HIV test only detects the patient's own antibodies.  It is the AIDS establishment's assumption that a person positive for certain antibodies has been exposed to 'HIV'.  If this assumption is not based in reality, then the only evidence of consequence for the HIV/AIDS theory would be useless.

Can you test for it if you don't know what it is?

To test the test, that is, to make sure that the test is accurate, it is necessary to give the test to a group of people, then check to see if the virus can be isolated from all people who test positive and to see if the people who test negative all lack it.  But this was never done for the HIV test.  In fact, 'HIV' has never been properly isolated by anyone, anywhere⁹.

What is necessary for isolation?

"1. Culture of putatively infected tissue.

2. Purification of particles by density gradient ultracentrifugation.

3. Electron micrographic examination of the 1.16 gm/ml sucrose density gradient revealing nothing else but particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions of retroviral particles.

4. Proof that such particles contain reverse transcriptase.

5. Analysis of the particles' proteins and RNA and proof that these are specific for those particles.

6. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is, when pure particles are introduced into cultures or animals, identical particles are obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.

7. Proof that the particles are a property of putatively infected tissues and cannot be induced in control cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with the retrovirus."

From A critical appraisal of the evidence for the isolation of HIV (Unpublished) by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F.Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, and David Causer.

Did Gallo do this for HIV?  Not even close. Kurt Vanquill (as quoted on Gary Null's website) describes the problems with Gallo's 'isolation':

"When Montagnier and Gallo detected reverse transcription activity in their cultures, they concluded that these T cells from AIDS patients were indeed infected with a retrovirus. Unfortunately, reverse transcription activity of normal cells also tends to be promoted by the very cellular conditions to which Gallo and Montagnier subjected their patients’ T cells. Therefore, detection of reverse transcription activity in the T cell cultures of AIDS patients was not proof at all that there was a retrovirus in those cultures.

"The second piece of evidence that Gallo and Montagnier offered in support of the notion that there was a retrovirus in the T cell cultures in their patients with AIDS was that they detected retroviral-like particles in these cell cultures. The important thing to remember is they didn’t identify retroviral-like particles in isolates, i.e. pure HIV, from these cultures. They simply pointed to particles in impure cell cultures and asserted that not only were they retroviruses, but they were a specific retrovirus, HIV.

"Now that really defies all scientific good sense because as even Gallo admits, retroviral-like particles that are actually cellular in origin are, in fact, ubiquitous in cultures, especially when cultures are subjected to the conditions that Gallo and Montagnier used in order to cultivate HIV. Therefore, the identification of these particles in impure cell cultures was not by any means proof positive that those particles were a retrovirus, much less a specific retrovirus, HIV.

"The third piece of evidence that Gallo and Montagnier offered in support of the notion that these T cells cultures from AIDS patients actually harbored a retrovirus was that they identified certain proteins in these cultures as HIV proteins. These HIV proteins were then incorporated into the antibody and West Blot and used to test for HIV antibodies. Unfortunately, Gallo and Montagnier identified proteins in their cultures as HIV proteins simply because these proteins reacted with antibodies from AIDS patients, and not from non-AIDS patients. Unfortunately, because AIDS patients had a high level of circulating antibodies, much higher than in normal, healthy individuals, that meant that AIDS patients were likely to have antibody cross reactions with any particular given protein more frequently than non-AIDS patients. Therefore, the identification of certain proteins as HIV proteins, simply because they reacted with antibodies of AIDS patients and not non-AIDS patients was insufficient proof that these proteins were actually HIV proteins.

"Those three pieces of evidence--reverse transcription activity, the identification of retroviral-like particles in impure cell cultures, and the identification of HIV proteins simply on the basis of antibody reactions--were the only pieces of evidence Gallo and Montagnier had in support of their claims to have isolated a retrovirus from their patients’ cultures."

Gallo's other invented virus: HL23V

Robert Gallo has invented a retrovirus before.   The evidence he provided for the existence of HL23V was even better than that given for the existence of HIV: particles of about the right size, that were photographed in a 1.16gm/ml density band; detection of reverse transcriptase in unstimulated cells, and an antibody/protein response. But tellingly, other researchers failed to detect HL23V and concluded that, in fact, the antibodies were a non-specific response to naturally-occurring carbohydrates.  No one now claims that HL23V ever existed.
If this standard of proof was obviously insufficient for HL23V, why should a lesser one be trusted for HIV?

Proof remains elusive

As insufficient as they are, no evidence better than Gallo's four papers in the May 4, 1984 Science has ever emerged.  Despite the critical importance of proper isolation, no one has accomplished it.   Meanwhile, 30 million people worldwide are told they will get AIDS solely on the basis of an antibody test that cannot be checked against the 'gold standard': isolated virus.  Cases in Africa usually don't even have the HIV test; they are 'diagnosed' by diseases endemic to Africa.  Electron micrographs finally released (in 1997!) do not show a single recognisable viral entity; the shapes identified as 'HIV' lack the characteristic projections of viruses and are too large to be retroviruses.

And the Continuum prize, offering £1000 for proper isolation of HIV, remains unclaimed after four years.  There is now additional money to be won, for a total of $25,000. Missing Virus Reward

Without proper isolation of HIV, there is no evidence that the antibody profile the HIV test looks for, and described as HIV-positive, has anything to do with 'HIV'.  The correlation between 'HIV' and AIDS becomes merely a correlation between AIDS and antibodies, proving nothing about what causes AIDS.

---

Even if HIV were shown to exist, Professor Peter Duesberg of Berkeley has argued cogently that neither HIV, nor any infectious agent, can cause AIDS.
Professor Duesberg's Website

This article is based on scientific and journalistic articles by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar Turner, John Papadimitriou, David Causer, Bruce Hedland-Thomas, Barry Page, Todd Miller, and Helman Alphonso (the Perth Group). Any errors or mis-statements should of course be considered mine, not theirs.
The Perth Group

References

1. Popovic, M., Sarngadharan, M., et al:Detection, Isolation, and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. Science, Vol. 224, pp. 497-500, May 4, 1984.
2. Gallo, R., Salahuddin, S., et al:Frequent Detection and Isolation of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and at Risk for AIDS. Science, Vol. 224, pp. 500-503, May 4, 1984.
3. Schüpbach, J., Popovic, M., et al:Serological Analysis of a Subgroup of Human T-Lymphotropic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) Associated with AIDS. Science, Vol. 224, pp. 503-505, May 4, 1984.
4. Sarngadharan, M., Popovic, M., et al:Antibodies Reactive with Human T-Lymphotropic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the Serum of Patients with AIDS. Science, Vol. 224, pp. 506-508, May 4, 1984.
5. Duesberg, P.: HIV Is Not the Cause of AIDS. Science, Vol. 241, pp. 514-517, July 29, 1988.
6. Duesberg, P., Schwartz, J.: Latent Viruses and Mutated Oncogenes: No Evidence for Pathogenicity Progress in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 43:135-204, 1992
7. Duesberg, P.:Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation But Not Causation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 86, pp. 755-764, February 1989
8. GAO, F., BAILES, E., et al: Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes Nature 397, 436-441, 4 February 1999 (link is only to an abstract)
9. Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E., Turner, V., et al: The Isolation of HIV -- Has it really been achieved? The Case Against. Continuum, Vol.4 No.3, Sept./Oct. 1996