Some realities of HIV for South Africa, based on a three-year investigation into HIV/AIDS communication

By Anita Allen

Research & Analysis 24 Feb. 2002

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied;
"at least – at least I mean what I say – that’s the same thing you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter.
"Why, you might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see!’ "

-- Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll (1865).

Dissent from the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS "flies in the face of reality", argued Press Ombudsman of South Africa Ed Linington in turning down a complaint against the Johannesburg-based Mail & Guardian newspaper in October 2000. He described it as comparable to being a flat-earther among round-earthers.

The complainants appealed on the basis that Linington had not properly applied his mind in making his judgment on a two-page article "All the president’s scientists: diary of a round-earther" (1) about the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel (PAAP).

Printing statements that accredited members of the best academies of science and employees of respected research institutions are "flat-earthers", and the work they do is "pseudo-science" is untrue and defamatory, argued the Forum for Debating AIDS South Africa (FDASA).

Arch-rebel Professor Peter Duesberg from the University of California-Berkeley has sparked off 20 years of microbiologists, campus tearooms etc. In 1987 he published a paper entitled "Retroviruses as Pathogens: Expectations and Reality" (2) in which he argued that there was no evidence to suggest that retroviruses were anything other than harmless, benign "passengers" of the human genome, where they constituted about 1% or so of the genetic material from our evolutionary history. He’s an honourable member of the US National Academy of Sciences despite petitions to drop him from the roll. Duesberg has paid for his minority view on retroviruses with grant money dropping from seriously big to small in the US. In microbiology States-side it doesn’t pay to question "germ theory" but only flat earthers suggest he is one of their club.

Unlike Galileo, he has refused to retract on HIV/AIDS or cancer. He is crackerjack at defining the germ and gene chemistry edge of the envelope in the latest single author version of his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (Regenery Press).

"Flat-earth" and "pseudo-science" labels are unambiguous that Duesberg and others were unhinged on the fundamentals of science, the FDASA argued in support of its contention that Ombudsman Linington could not have applied mind to matter.

Press Ombudsman Reality

The Appeal Panel of the Press Ombudsman of South Africa overturned its own Ombudsman’s judgment. Chairman Professor Fikile Ndaki said the M&G was in breach of Section 3.3 of the Code: "Comment by the press SHALL BE AN HONEST EXPRESSION OF OPINION AND SHALL TAKE FAIR ACCOUNT OF ALL AVAILABLE FACTS WHICH ARE MATERIAL TO THE MATTER COMMENTED UPON." (His capitals)

Ndaki upheld the arguments of Robin MacGregor, who represented the interests of the public on the Appeal Panel. "The content of the article was unbalanced and seriously biased against ‘dissident views’, Macgregor wrote. "It was also snide sarcastic and offensive in its comments on a number of individual dissident members of the Panel."

The remaining member of the Appeal Panel, an editor in Natal, argued "All’s fair in love and war". An unfortunate, but illuminating choice as a guiding principle for reporting on HIV/AIDS or any issue – and from an anonymous source, as well.

Media Reality

In South Africa, mainstream media (print, TV, radio and the South African Journal of Science) has by and large purposefully avoided reporting on Mbeki’s panel. As the most widely read source of cutting-edge science locally, the SAJS has yet to publish any paper written by scientists working on the HIV envelope whose research edge indicates it is endogenous and non infectious. So anyone depending on the SAJS for latest news on HIV/AIDS have yet to read why exactly fellow scientists coming from different edges in other fields have objected from the start that HIV is a new retrovirus which caused anything.

For the rest of us-in-the-street depending on our watchdog media, the defamatory M&G article was it on the panel. The anonymous author panellist felt impelled to confess that HIV-causes-Aiders took a vow not to participate in the panel. They would take their R2600 daily per diems and free plane tickets and accommodation at such as the Sheraton in Pretoria for up to seven days depending on how flights worked, but they wouldn’t participate in panel discussions. As part of the Silent Treatment, some openly slept! Some never woke up. Nevertheless, thanks to PAAP, everyone’s science is under scrutiny by rule of complementarity.

Myth Reality

It’s a media myth that "dissident science" is "pseudo" compared to "orthodox science", which means Tom, Dick and Dial-a-PRO commentators and Tony Leon, leader of the opposition Democratic Party have also not been applying mind to matter.

At very least, in South Africa honest opinion on HIV/AIDS must take into account the reality that we have a president who asked his Health Minister some questions regarding Germs and how she treated them in 1999. She answered. He let world leaders know on 4 April 2000 his government was entering into dialogue with any scientist in their countries on the subject of the specific bug HIV (3).

Folly or grace? Mbeki asked as he went where no leader had taken Cabinet & Country (4). Not to be outdone, the Clinton Administration immediately declared HIV/AIDS a national security issue.

Cabinet Reality

The SA Cabinet in May 2000 endorsed improving collective knowledge on HIV and AIDS as a commonsense thing to do, as long as PAAP did it. As Mbeki put it: You can’t react to a catastrophe by doing ordinary things (4).

From all indicators, individual Cabinet members were hit for a whammy listening to lectures about a virus not being able to cause a syndrome, if you think about it. Two years later one or two still suffer cerebral paralysis. Connectivity challenges also exist elsewhere in government notably the Department(s) of Health, ham-in-the-sandwich minister(s), out-on-a-limb premier(s), all the president’s scientists and the media’s seemingly neverending earnestly important bleeding heart pollsters who also do not apply mind to matter.

"Who’s Who" Panel Reality

Mbeki’s panel has included the crème de la crème locally and internationally. Membership has not remained static and the panel’s work is ongoing – such as the review of Mother-to-child-Transmission of HIV and treatment with nevirapine and AZT (5). While members participate in their personal capacities, they are the who’s who of HIV/AIDS research in South Africa from major universities and institutions, including my alma mater University of the Witwatersrand.

Internationally the panel includes Dr Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, France, who in May 1983 published a paper in Science in which he claimed to have isolated a new retrovirus Lymphadenopathy-Associated Virus (LAV). What he didn’t claim was that it caused AIDS. (6) He sent a sample of his virus to Dr Robert Gallo at the US National Institutes of Health. In May 1984 Gallo et al published four papers also in Science (7-10) claiming identification of a retrovirus dubbed Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus-III (HTLV-III). Exactly what Gallo et al identified was hotly disputed from day of publication.

In 1985 it was pointed out that genetically Gallo’s and Montagnier’s RNA viruses were indistinguishable. A squabble ensued. Arbitration went to the US courts and

US President Ronald Reagan and the French Premier Jacques Chirac intervened. An agreement was signed in which the disputed "it" was renamed "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" and the profits from a test to detect the presence of "HIV aka HTLV-III aka Lav" genetic material were shared.

HIV Discovery Reality

Whatever "it" is, Montagnier and Gallo are credited as co-discoverers by anyone involved in HIV research. In South Africa circa May 1999 I started investigating after reading Nobel prize-winner Dr Kary Mullis explaining why his PCR invention was being misused in HIV/AIDS research (11). South African researchers had two things in common: no one could give a reference to the founding paper(s) proving HIV causes AIDS and no one was aware of any opposition at all to the proposition.

As a journalist I walked through the transformation from Apartheid to democratic rule with the scientific community from 1977 to the present. I am sure I will be forgiven for saying that in some respects those that stayed behind – and came back - contributed to the brain drain. I knew by the end of May 1999 that HIV/AIDS science in this country was short of the edge of the world’s envelope. I got over shame at trippling over the obvious by hindsight and l never doubted it was grace that brought the Rainbow Nation a second president of integrity who in addition followed scientific method and didn’t kiss babies for cameras.

Mbeki’s panel of advisors included representatives of UNAIDS, the US’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its Centre’s for Disease Control (CDC) and leaders of high profile international activist organisations such as the International AIDS Society, organiser of the bi-annual International AIDS Conferences like Durban 2000 and unlimited grant funded IAPAC (International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care); as well as the US-based Henry J Kaiser Foundation, which pays health reporter salaries, etc etc etc.

The Clinton Administration sent four representatives to the first panel meeting in May and one was elected a full member. The panel grew to 60-odd members at the second meeting on 3 July 2000. At that stage it involved perhaps twice as many observers and participation in a six week Internet debate between the two on a password protected site.

On 4 July 2000, at the end of the second meeting scientists were forced willy nilly by moderators and facilitators to devise tests to prove their science. One of these was announced by the Minister of Health Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. A team comprising Dr Malegapuru William Makgoba, president of the Medical Research Council; Dr Harvey Bialy former editor of Bio/Technology and Dr Helene Gayle of the Centres for Disease Control would "focus on the key question of validating the reliability of the tests we use in the diagnosis of HIV/AIDS," the Health Minister said, and added: "We expect a detailed report at the completion of this task before the year end."(12)

"Once And For All" Test Reality

The task was not completed by the end of 2000. Very little more was heard of it publicly bar for "leaks" that US and SA laboratories had exchanged blood samples to see if given the same test kits the laboratories could achieve comparable results. If there have been results, they have not been made public. Africa’s solitary dissident panellist Professor Sam Mhlongo, Chief Practitioner and head Family Medicine at Medunsa received an unscheduled visit from a new US Science desker and companion who only asked questions about the company the prof was keeping.

The Makgoba et al test was described as "settling the science once and for all".by PAAP Chief Moderator Dr Khotso Mokhele, president of the National Research Foundation. His PhD from Harvard is in microbiology and he signed off the panel’s Interim Report released on 4 April 2001.

So, what happened to stall this all important test that would take 4 to 6 weeks to complete? I don’t know exactly. What I know includes:

  • M&G front-paged Makgoba applying for another job. Dr Helene Gayle left the CDC after the publication of the Interim Report "seconded" to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • When Bush took over the Whitehouse, the phones in the Clinton AIDS unit offices were left to ring.
  • In June 2001 Bush, like Mbeki who was on a state visit to the US at the time, did not attend the UN AIDS Conference in New York in consciously competent, that’s the scientific way, agreement with the protocol established by a prior European Union & Allies decision to downgrade what the UN had hoped would be a World Summit on AIDS attended by heads of state. It wasn’t so much a snub of Kofi Annan who got the Nobel Peace Prize, but rather heavyweight world leaders giving UNAIDS CEO Peter Piot a "don’t call us" along with fingering headlines screaming WHO doomsday stats.
  • While on his co-incidentally arranged to co-incide with UNGASS State visit States-side, Mbeki just happened to pop up at a certain laboratory in Pennsylvania, home of the cracked but intact liberty bell.
  • Around the same time, US Agency for International Development head said Africans "had no concept of Western Time" so, among other things, it was no use giving them time-dependent antiretrovirals (13)

Two-Consensus Reality

The PAAP’s Interim Report was an independent summary by a premier African scientist/administrator and an international committee of moderators (14). Their report noted only two points of consensus: HIV/AIDS statistics were unreliable and no one agreed on a definition of AIDS.

Statistics Reality

HIV/AIDS statistics for South Africa including those quoted by government, Metropolitan Group, LoveLife, Henry J Kaiser Foundation, UNAIDS, WHO and even Clem Sunter et Alan Whiteside (panel member) (15) are extrapolations and mathematical models estimated from annual ante-natal clinic surveys of pregnant women conducted in South Africa since 1990.

These surveys involving annually about 20,000 blood samples and based on a test to detect "HIV infection" have fatal flaws, 14 members of the panel argued. Principle flaw was surrogate protein markers were used in "HIV tests" being used in South Africa to infer the presence of HIV – as opposed to proteins specific to HIV. Ergo: tests based on non-specific surrogates, could not be used to diagnose specific infection with "HIV" with any degree of certainty. Their arguments are supported by manufacturers of HIV tests. "At present, there is no recognised standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV- 2 in human blood," says the disclaimer included in all Abbott AXSYM HIV1, HIV2 Elisa test kits – the official test used in the antenatal clinic surveys.

Makgoba’s test was going to sort this out. My guess is that no one talking to him at present knows how to do it. It’s either that or once again they have bits of RNA and no retrovirus and don’t know why they failed – again!

AIDS Definition Reality

The second area of consensus in the PAAP, "was the need for the case definition of AIDS to be standardised for clinical practice in South Africa" (Interim Report 3.8.5). Mbeki’s panel consisted of people from the four corners of the earth. None of those countries Health Departments agree on a definition of AIDS or how to diagnose "IT", or treat "IT". Imagine that – all panel members agreeing that none of them agreed on the definition of what "it-HIV aka LAV aka HTLVIII" was supposed to cause.

How then do health professionals diagnose "it’s" disease "IT"? The answer is simple: by a laboratory test. As already detailed and re-argued in what follows - sans standards for "it", it’s a free for all including visual recognition by laboratory technicians.

HIV Isolation Reality

Synthesis of cutting-edge research indicates the genetic sequences presently identified "HIV" do not constitute an infectious, exogenous retrovirus that is sexually transmitted (16).

A strong European-led school has insisted for 18 years that "retrovirus" is an erroneous classification of the genetic material currently identified as "HIV". This forms the basis of therapies for people suffering immune stress (17) At a biological (as opposed to a microbiological or genetic) level the largest grouping (18) has repeatedly pointed out starting with critiques of the 1984 Gallo/Montagnier papers that HIV has not been isolated as set out by Robert Koch and integrated into science as the standard known as Koch’s Postulates.

This refers to isolation as in biological embodiment – an identifiable entity rather than DNA or RNA of an entity. In order to cause anything, a germ has to have an embodiment even if it is a micro-parasite. It must be distinguishable from the host.

A group of scientists led by biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopolus from the University of Western Australia and Royal Perth Hospital proposed a test to prove this claim one way or another in the Interim Report. (Interim Report 9.6-8) It would be a quick way to get rid of dissidents and dissention on this issue once and for all.

Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Reality

The reality of PAAP is that for the first time in 18 years, HIV-causes-AIDS science was condensed into a manageable review statement in the Interim Report released 4 April 2001. Given the dramatic circumstances, people were drawn in to reading it who hitherto had not been engaged in HIV research specifically, but not any member of the political opposition in South Africa. For the first time readers would have seen their own areas of expertise interpreted by HIV/AIDS researchers. They input into Mbeki’s dialogue through whatever channels interconnected.

Germ Theory Versus Gene Theory Reality

It’s been 10 months since the Interim Report was released 4 April 2001, the reality for South Africa and the world is that the larger Germ versus Gene Theory of disease and "heal yourself" versus "drugs" therapy debate is ongoing. In the process, knowledge of the Can-a-virus-be envelope has hugely inflated. But by law of complementarity that also means it has got incredibly dense. In the case of orthodollartors it has the clarity of goulash.

For the sake of clarity - when it comes to the proposal that HIV is a germ, it has been settled bar for Dial-a-zackies. I’m all for the Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al test going ahead even if we have to lock some of them up in Big Brother’s studio. Then all except those toyi toying can see the difference between "biological isolation" and RNA in human blood as reshuffled genetic material originating with the host (19). That is endogenous and non-infectious, not exogenous and infectious, "junk genes" which make up about 70% to 95% of a human being’s entire DNA blueprint, and "junk" only because relatively little is known about them.

In a Special Report: "HIV, Families and Medical Justice" in US Mothering Sept/Oct 2001 (20), Oxford journalist and panel observer Neville Hodgkinson highlighted one class of this junk genome, HERVS (Human Endogenous Retroviruses)

"They may also boost or coordinate protective immune responses and could be responsible for passing on an acquired capacity for such responses from mother to child during pregnancy."(21)

"HERVs have been demonstrated to come out of the genome under the very circumstances in which "HIV/AIDS" is commonly diagnosed --conditions of stress including infection, malnutrition, and pregnancy. (20)

"People produce antibodies against their HERVs, and not surprisingly, they test positive for HIV. All retroviruses are similar, and our genome is full of dormant retroviruses -- over 2 percent of the genome is retroviral. Thus I have come to suspect that retroviruses are found in sick people but are not the cause of sickness. Their release into the bloodstream is a consequence of the sickness. People who are under stress often test positive for HIV even though they have never been 'infected" (22).

Amen, says Dr Howard B Urnovitz, an expert on HERVs (23) who with et al (24) showed that as patients got sick, their antibodies to their own genes (anti-HERV antibodies) could be detected (25).

The technology is already being applied to genetically fingerprint exactly what is killing animals – or people. For instance, organophosphate chemicals detectable in urine and breast milk, maybe DDT in KwaZulu-Natal to combat malaria or toxins blown on the wind from never out of sight industries in Gauteng. These two provinces are first and second in the annual ante-natal clinic surveys for high antibody counts. Urnovitz points out that these types of chemicals cause junk gene rearrangements (26) Urnovitz outlined the problems with HIV tests, including urine ones like his own, at an Oak Ridge Conference in 1999 (27). His message was: "The most positive thing to come from our analysis of urine HIV antibody tests was that the human junk genome was active in other medical conditions. This provided the clue to us that junk genomes were active in chronic disease and was masked by the HIV tests. Also, we advanced the idea that HIV env sequences might arise from exposure to chemical substances." (28) Later in February 2000, Urnovitz, supported by testimony from Luc Montagnier, told a Congressional Committee that toxic exposures rearranged junk genes. (29). Urnovitz commented to me: "The clues to human disease lies in the blood of Gulf War Syndrome veterans. Why? Because no ethics violators could find a bacteria or virus fast enough to start a new religion. We were forced to look at the enormous amount of genetic material in the blood. I was the first to discover that the RNA in the blood was reshuffled genes, not from a virus, but from the HOST. (His caps)." (30)

On 28 October 1999 Mbeki reported to Parliament that he had major problems with antiretroviral toxicity. Urnovitz’s latest appearance before a congressional committee was 24 January 2002 on the current problem with medical research including HIV/AIDS (31). Hopefully Congress already knows that there is no agreement on what "it" or "IT" is and therefore "it/IT" statistics can only be wonky. If all this is news, hopefully it is good news.

Take Away Reality

"The take away message is that you have to look at all the junk and not just HERVs. HERVs are only about 1% percent of the whole genome. You have to consider all the junk (LINEs, SINES, Alus, microsatellites, redundant sequences, etc) if you are ever going to solve the puzzle. The AIDS research structure is incorrectly overloaded by virologists when the answer lies in the proper balance of the right scientific disciplines," Urnovitz comments. (32) Needless to say, this all invokes a vastly different interpretation of exchanges of bodily fluids and mother-to-child-transmission of genetic scraps with names like pol, nef, env and gag. It’s a textbook paradigm shift from "undesirable and always fatal" to "desirable and life preserving". It follows that trying to nuke microscopic pals with chemotherapy may not be the best intervention. In fact "no intervention" may be the rule – and profile the chemo toxin(s).

For gags & gang fanatics on the HIV envelope (27) Dr Urnovitz adds: "Montagnier and I looked at his famous Group O HIV that he isolated from a French farm woman with no apparent risk factors. I took the virus envelope apart and showed how you could build an HIV envelope from scratch by recombining parts of the human genome." (33). Exactly what opponents of the HIV causes Anything hypothesis have said from the start: HIV is a laboratory Frankenstein. It isn’t HIV and it doesn’t cause IT. It’s HERV junk, but HERVs don’t cause anything. HERVs, including HERV-it (aka HIV aka LAV), are effects not causes. Another class of HERV reaction is called cancer, which is the opposite of cell death, as Duesberg pointed out so many years ago now. (2).

Research Reality

In what way is HIV/AIDS a massive misrepresentation of poorly controlled research and free for all communication, propelled by an obsessive preoccupation with getting rid of germs instead of looking at the total picture? Since the only way to know something is in the context of something else, the multidisciplinary spirit essential to exercise academic freedom has to be rekindled in educational institutions. As it stands, for 18 years South Africa’s training and teaching institutions, have failed in turning out graduates capable of questioning HIV science no matter what angle they came at it.

Until institutions where tomorrow begins today come up to speed collectively on these realities, HIV/AIDS will continue to be an epitaph.

The author is a partner at David Allen & Associates, and former science writer at The Star, Johannesburg.


1. Mail & Guardian, 8 September 2000.

2 Duesberg PH. (1987). Retroviruses as carcinogens and pathogens: Expectations and reality. Cancer Res. 47:1199-1220. See also interview Waytt Gibbs, W. Scientific American. August 2001

3 Mbeki's Heads of State letter dated 3 April 2000 was leaked from Whitehouse and picked up by the DP which passed it on to media with shock horror statement published 19 April in South Africa.

4 Sheraton Hotel, Pretoria. 6 May 2000 hardcopy Video:

5 Papadopulos-Eleopulos E; Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Alfonso H, Page BAP; Causer D; Mhlongo S; Fiala C; Miller T, Brink A, Hodgkinson N. "Mother to Child Transmission of HIV and its Prevention with AZT and Nevirapine - A Critical Analysis of the Evidence". Perth Group 2001

6 Barré-Sinoussi F, Chermann JC, Rey F, et al. (1983). "Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)". Science 220:868-71

7 Gallo RC, Sarin PS, Gelmann EP. (1983). "Isolation of Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)". Science 220:865-867.

8 Popovic M, Sarngadharan MG, Read E, Gallo RC. "Detection, Isolation, and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS". Science 1984 224:497-500.

9 Sarngadharan M, G., Popovic M, Bruch L."Antibodies Reactive to Human T-Lymphotrophic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the Serum of Patients with AIDS". Science 1984 224:506-508.

10 Schupbach J, Popovic M, Gilden RV, Gonda MA, Sarngadharan MG, Gallo RC. "Serological analysis of a Subgroup of Human T-Lymphotrophic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) Associated with AIDS". Science 1984 224:503-505.

11 Mullis, Kary. "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field". Pantheon, 1998

12 "Comments by the Minister of Health Dr Manto Tshabalala Msimang at the conclusion of the second meeting of the presidential review panel". GCIS Press statement 4 July 2000.

13 Herbert B, "Refusing to save Africans", The New York Times, 11 June 2001

14 Complete list of who was invited and by whom, as well as who attended (panellists, moderators and facilitators) Presidential Aids Advisory Panel Interim Report. Chapter 1. 4 April 2001

15 "Declaring War on Aids", Research and Analysis. Embark Wits Business School May 2001, pg 18-25

16 Contact author at for customised references.

17 Vast continent with many great centres of learning. Start with Study Group for AIDS therapy. c/o Felix A. de Fries, Eglistr. 7 CH-8004 Zürich Tel./FAX: 0041 1 401 34 24.Email:

18 Perth Group's Special South African HIV/AIDS website: Website

19 Urnovitz HB, Tuite JJ, Higashida JM, Murphy WH, "RNAs in the sera of Persian Gulf War veterans have segments homologous to chromosome 22q11.2", Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 6:3, May 1999, pg 330-335). Website:

20 Hodgkinson N, "Molecular Miscarriage: Is the HIV Theory a Tragic Mistake", Special Report: Aids, Families and Medical Justice. Sept/Oct 2001

21 Steele EJ, "Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution: On the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics". University of Chicago Press, 1981, p 42-57. Rothenfluh H and Steele EJ, "Lamarck, Darwin and the Immune System", Today's Life Science. August 1993.

22 Personal Communication, Neville Hodgkinson, quoted in 20 above from Rudolf Werner, professor of microbiology at the University of Miami Medical School

23 Urnovitz HB, Murphy WH. "Human Endogenous Retroviruses: Nature, Occurrence and Clinical Implications in Human Disease". Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Jan 1996, Vol 9, pg. 72-99

24 Stevens RW, Baltch AL, Smith RP, McCreedy BJ, Michelsen PB, Bopp LH, Urnovitz HB, "Antibody to Human Endogenous Retrovirus Peptide in Urine of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Positive Patients", Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 6:6, Nov 1999, pg 783-786

25 Personal communication 21 February 2002

26 Personal communication 23 February 2002

27 Urnovitz HB, Sturge JC, Gottfried TD, Murphy WH, "Urine Antibody tests: New Insights into the dynamics of HIV-1 infection" Clinical Chemistry 45:9 1999, pg 1602-1613

28 Personal communication. 11 February 2002


30 Personal communication 17 February 2002

31 Also (look under AIDS for "Testimony of Howard B. Urnovitz, Ph.D. (1/24/02)"

32 Personal communication 17 February 2002

33 Personal communication 11 February 2002