Re: Where is the proof that the Hepatitis C (HCV) virus really exists? (same goes for HIV, the aids retrovirus)

Although as I said there are some statements I did agree with and had addressed numerous times in previous posts.  For example the fact that HIV cannot cause AIDS under the original definition of AIDS.  The definition of AIDS was changed to fit the virus after Gallo lied about HIV being the cause of AIDS.  This does not mean though that the virus does not exist.

That´s exactly the point that Dr. Peter Duesberg is trying to make: That the HIV virus really exists but is not responsible for AIDS. But this is once more refutted by both the Perth Group and Dr. Lanka (I´m sorry again, but theirs are not just opinions. They are quite knowlegeable and do offer lots of evidence - which again makes me think you did not really read the links I  posted. For this discussion alone there is the link to questions and answers in The Perth Group site and the link in their site to Dr. Stefan Lanka.

 Yes, the "knobs, spikes" have been found:

 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/303/

Yes, but in that link´s site there is no mention of their diameter, which is of capital importance. This is an extract concerning another sample but will do for what I want to illustrate: “The point is that any genuine retroviral particle contains a fixed amount of RNA and protein. No more and no less. This means that if we consider diameters of particles pointed in the two studies, they are 1.14 times to 1.96 times larger than the estimated maximum for a normal HIV particle. Translating this in volumes, and comparing them to a particle with a diameter of 120nM, the Franco/German particles have 50% more volume than a retroviral particle and the US particles have 750% more volume”, that is to say incompatible with the same definition of a retrovirus! Even if the authors do not admit it, the data of the two cited papers contribute to show that where should be present pure HIV, of HIV there is no trace."

Where they are making a mistake here is in thinking that AIDS is a disease, which it is not.  AIDS is a syndrome, which is a group of symptoms.

Maybe only in the parts you´ve read! But in the sites containing the links I posted there are loads of references and evidence (papers and reports) and articles that do NOT see AIDS as a disease but as a syndrome (refering to what you say here).

Nevertheless, according to the majority of sites, this is what they say about disease and syndrome: The two terms are not applied rigorously.  AIDS is still called a "syndrome" even though we now have a good line on the cause, the HIV virus.  It acquired the name "syndrome" before the cause was known, and it has stuck.  Others would say that the HIV infection is the disease, and that AIDS is the syndrome (set of symptoms) caused by it, because you can have the HIV infection without having AIDS.  The two terms overlap substantially and sometimes you can only tell what a particular person (even a medical person) means from context.

I noticed that they keep ignoring the fact that the virus has been genetically sequenced.  In order to genetically sequence the virus the virus must first be isolated. And one fact they have ignored is that the virus has the gene for the production of RT, not just the enzyme.

If you read deeper in their papers you would have known that they do not ignore neither facts.

This is a random pick on the subject:

 "As already stated, genomic amplification techniques concern small segments, not surely the complete “viral” genome and the results which are obtained do not give the assurance to have the true “HIV”, besides they are frankly discordant. At this point it's legitimate to ask what is really and how it's made the original viral genome. The reserch group from Perth (69) notes that if an unique AIDS retrovirus existed, then less than 1% genomic differences should be the rule, not the exception. For instance, the type 3 Sabin poliovirus vaccine differed from its neurovirulent progenitor at only 10 nucleotide positions after 53 in vitro and 21 in vivo passages in monkey tissues. In 1977, H1N1 influenza A virus reappeared in the human population after 27 years of dormancy with sequences mainly identical to those of the 1950s virus”. Although Eigen's quasispecies model has been used to describe the genome of RNA viruses, even 1% sequence differences in these genomes are considered to represent “extreme variability”. “Many selective forces may stabilize virus populations. These stabilizing factors may include the need for conservation of protein structure and function, RNA secondary structure, glycosylation sites, and phosphorylation sites”. Let us see what is the picture offered by HIV research. Not long afterwards it was discovered that “If you were to test two HIVpositive people at random and analyse the genetic material of their strains, they would differ, on average, by about 13 percent” (70). Besides what is considered to be the genotype of HIV comes from sequence analysis of subgenomes that HIV genotype consignments are derived from sequence analysis of subgenomes measuring 2% to 30% of the total (71). The data is that such “genomes” vary between 3-40% (72,73). “If 30% of the HIV genome varies as much as 40%, how much does 100% of the HIV genome vary? This is the legitimate question of Eleopulos and colleagues (69).

Among researchers there is disagreement also about the number of HIV genes. In 1988 they said HIV genome had eight genes (74), in 1990 ten (75). In 1996 Montagnier referred that HIV had eight genes (76), and according to Barré-Sinoussi, HIV has nine genes (77) Not even the number of nucleotides of HIV genome seems to be constant (69)

HIV quasi-species

Because great genomic differences were found - even the same person can harbor more than 106-108 genetically distinct variants (78) - to try to find a justification for this phenomenon, the concept of quasi-species has been introduced. Prior to the 1990s, the HIV sequences were classified as African and USA/European with sequence differences of 20-30 percent between these two groups. (79). In the 1990s, HIV researchers started to divide the “HIV genome” into subtypes A, B, C, D, E, etc. The basis for this classification system is: “(a) subtypes are approximately equidistant from one another in env; (b) the env phylogenetic tree is for the most part congruent with gag phylogenetic trees; (c) two or more samples are required to define a sequence subtype”. However, “Subtype naming problems have arisen. A small but not insignificant number of viral sequences are hybrid, clustering with one sequence subtype in gag and another sequence subtype in env, for example;... Naming becomes problematic when highly divergent forms of a given subtype arises: such forms are sometimes designated A', B', F', etc”. It is increasingly necessary to have sequence data from both gag and env coding sequences when a new form or subtype is being claimed” (80). By the middle of 1996 “at least ten” (A-J) prevalent major (M) and a low prevalence, O, HIV-1 genotypes were described and new genotypes are still reported (81,82).

Is it possible then to describe the “HIV DNA” even if it has variation of 10% , not to mention 20 or 30 or 40% as is the case, as a ...”population of closely related genomes, referred to as a quasispecies” (69)? The extreme variability of HIV genome make us ask what is the sense to refer to HIV as a clear distinct entity. The genomic difference among human being of different race is about 1 per 1.000, between man and orang-utan about 2%, but to find a 30% difference is necessary to compare non the less man and mouse, man and ass, man and elephant! Can one consider mouse, ass and elephant as quasi-species of man?."

more here:

www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epreplyintervlm.htm

 www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/07/05/hepatitis_c_epidemic_where_is_the_virus.htm

This is old information I have seen posted before on the AOL boards when I use to post on there.  A lot has been learned since that time.

Yes I realize 2003 is a long way back, but my interest in posting this was to expose the whole Chiron labs strategy which has not been altered at all by time.

Anyway Hv, I´m not a knowlegeable student on this matter, but am reading a lot...and actually have not really reached a conclusion yet. But one thing is for sure: there are many many sides to this question!