IS HIV 69 YEARS OLD?

By Roberto Giraldo

June 2000

HIV researchers love to contend that HIV originated in Africa, spreading from there to the whole world. They have engaged in much speculation about the age (1-7) of the virus.

In the June 9, 2000 issue of the journal Science a researcher, commenting upon the birth date of HIV, stated: "Their molecular clock analysis provided a date of 1931, with a 95% confidence interval of 1915 to 1941". Eureka: American researchers "discover" that HIV was born in Africa in 1931 (1,2). Following are several of the researchers’ declarations, expressed in two Science articles:

"Current evidence indicates that the human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV-1 and HIV-2) entered the human population through multiple zoonotic infections from simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV)-infected nonhuman primates."

"The most serious viral epidemic resulting from zoonotic transmission is AIDS caused by the human immunodeficiency viruses (HIVs)."

In Africa, "Simian immunodeficiency viruses were transmitted from nonhuman primates to humans and began to diversify, resulting in the emergence of HIVs."

"By the time that HIV-1 and HIV-2 were identified in the 1980s, several separate and widespread epidemics caused by independent HIV lineages were already under way in human populations in Africa."

In Africa, "HIVs appear to have been transmitted to humans multiple times from at least two different nonhuman primates infected with SIVs."

"Lineages of HIV that were transmitted from chimpanzees are known as HIV-1, and those transmitted from sooty mangabeys are known as HIV-2."

"By 1950 there existed 10 or fewer HIV-1 M-group lineages that left descendants that have survived to the present."

"The epidemic exploded in the 1950s and 1960s, coincident with the end of colonial rule in Africa, several civil wars, the introduction of widespread vaccination programs, the growth of large African cities, the sexual revolution, and increased travel by humans to and from Africa."

And they announce: "As we head into the 21^st century, human populations will have to deal with many more zoonotic viral epidemics."

The authors offer no proof for any of the above declarations and accusations. It sounds as if they do not know that the main difference between science and religion is that the former requires objective demonstration and proof for all of its statements.

What is known as "HIV science" is replete with extravagant names given by HIV researchers to their speculations. For example, investigators tracking the origin of HIV adore speaking about "molecular clock analysis", "molecular epidemiology", "phylogenetic analysis", "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV)", "SIV and HIV gene sequences", "HIV cloning", "zoonotic transmission", "transmission early hypothesis", "transmission cause epidemic hypothesis", "parallel late transmission hypothesis", "phylogenetic history of HIV", and "molecular evolution of HIV-1" (1-9). It sounds as if everything that they describe is real. Using exotic names, researchers give birth to new myths about HIV/AIDS. Additionally, this practice is an example of how HIV researchers and top "scientific" journals, working in tandem, contribute to the widespread hysteria about viral transmission.

The world’s leading peer review journals, such as Science and Nature, are always prepared to publish nonsensical assumptions and subjective speculations. They also practice poor judgment and censorship. Last year Nature rejected the publication of a letter from the Perth Group (10) which explained in detail that Gao and co-workers did not prove that HIV originated in African Chimpanzees, as claimed (3).

Phrases from the articles upon the origins of HIV in the last issue of Science could perfectly well be part of a science fiction novel. On the other hand, the figures and tables used by the Science researchers to illustrate the manner in which they were able to "discover" that HIV was born in Africa in 1931 could perfectly well be part of an exposition of modern art. Some individuals are easily hypnotized by the power of these computer designs and believe everything that they are told. Unfortunately, current majority reasoning is very simple¾ if something is published in Science or Nature, it has to be true. Sadly, no one now checks the methodology used in trials or asks for proofs of assertions.

I find very disturbing the obsession western researchers seem to have for blaming African people and animals for the origin of AIDS and other epidemics (1-9,11,12). Robert Gallo has made himself number one in this blame game (7-9,11).

HIV researchers originally blamed green African monkeys (7,8). More recently they have blamed chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys (1-3). They speculate that exotic behaviors of Africans with animals facilitate "zoonotic transmission" (1-9,11,12).

Whenever researchers find a fragment of nucleic acid they think that they have a new virus (1-9,11,12). They are fascinated with the similarity between fragments of nucleic acids found in African primates and those found in humans. They do not attempt to find alternative explanations for the presence of these genetic materials. It appears as though they have all forgotten that the genetic material of non-human primates is almost identical to human nucleic acid sequences. This has been known since the earliest research on the structure of nucleic acids (13). HIV researchers merely assume the viral nature of these genetic materials. This viral nature, however, has never been demonstrated (14,15).

Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her group in Perth, Australia, have provided objective alternative explanations for the presence of these genetic materials, proteins, glucoproteins, and enzymes, the ones that supposedly belong to HIV (10,14,15).

All those materials found in the tissues of human and nonhuman primates could perfectly well be the result of multiple, repeated, and chronic exposure to stress challenges (16-19).

Inevitably, papers such as those published in the last issue of Science concerning the birth date of HIV (1,2), together with the great majority of the so-called "scientific publications" on HIV from 1983 to the present, speak to a crisis in the scientific method itself. This crisis is severe and pandemic. It is a true catastrophe!

The "Durban Declaration", written by HIV defenders and to be published in Nature on July 6, 2000, is a prime example of the anti-science practiced by both defenders of HIV and the leading peer reviewed journals. They pretend to elucidate, with votes, a debate that they cannot defend with scientific arguments, arguments they simply do not have. It is also indicative of a profound crisis in scientific institutions and the state of desperation and decadency in the perpetuators of the HIV/AIDS fraud.

During the six weeks of the South African Government AIDS Advisory Panel internet discussion, most of the "wise scientists", by whom I mean the HIV defenders, have not spoken. Perhaps we AIDS dissidents, heretics, and skeptics are like President Thabo Mbeki’s "fools", inexplicably fond of debating scientific disputes.

We AIDS skeptics are a heterogeneous group, with more than two thousand individuals from more than 50 countries, holding different views about HIV/AIDS. We all agree that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. However, we disagree on several issues; the viral character of HIV, the meaning of being HIV-positive, the presence of AIDS in Africa, etc. One of the main differences between the believers in HIV and us is that we practice and stimulate scientific debate (15,20-23). We never look for people’s votes to support our views. We do not decide scientific truth by signing declarations. Scientific facts are decided by argumentation, not by democracy.

We AIDS skeptics are not frightened of debate because we are not afraid of being wrong. The primary goal of science is to discover the laws of nature and how best to employ those laws toward bettering the lives of men and women. The cause of AIDS is a people’s cause.

Current research and publications on the origins of HIV constitute a "scientific" extravaganza, one that has nothing to do with real science (10,24). The entirety of "HIV science" is a fraud which will have terrible consequences for all human kind.

This article was written in June 2000 and posted during the Internet Discussion of the South African Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel

References

1. Korber B et al. Timing the ancestor of the HIV-1 pandemic strain. Science June 9, 2000; 289: 1789-1796.
2. Hillis DM. Origins of HIV. Science June 9, 2000; 289: 1757 & 1759.
3. Gao F, et al. Origin of HIV-1 in the Chimpanzee Pantroglodytes troglodytes. Nature 1999; 397:436-441.
4. Kanki PJ et al. The origins of HIV-1 and HTLV-4/HIV-2. Ann NY Acad Sci 1987; 511: 370-375.
5. Penny D. Origins of the AIDS virus. Nature 1988; 333: 494-495.
6. Smith TF et al. The phylogenetic history of immunodeficiency viruses. Nature 1988; 333: 573575.
7. Gallo RC. The AIDS virus. Part II of a two-part article on human retroviruses. In 1984 the cause of AIDS was shown to be the third human retrovirus. Although knowledge of the virus was rapidly obtained, its roll will be heavy. Scientific America 1987; 256: 47-56.
8. Gurgo C & Gallo RC. Human retroviruses: HTLV-I, II, and III and their association with leukemia and AIDS. Ann NY Acad Sci 1987; 511: 350-369.
9. Gallo RC, Blattner WA, et al. HTLV: The virus of adult T-cell leukemia in Japan and elsewhere. Lancet 1982; I: 683.
10. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, et al. Did Africans get HIV from chimps? Rappraising AIDS 1999; 7(8): 1-4.
11. Gallo RC. The first human retrovirus. Part I of two-part article on the human retroviruses. The first example, found in 1978 causes a rare leukemia. Its discovery laid the groundwork for identifying the related virus that causes AIDS. Scientific America 1986; 255: 88-98.
12. Pearce RB. HTLV missionaries and parasites. Lancet 1984; ii: 927.
13. Watson JD, Crick FHC. Molecular structure of nucleic acids. A structure of deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 1953; 171: 737-738.
14. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11: 696-707.
15. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? The case against. Continuum (London) September/October 1996; 4(3): S1-S24.
16. Morimoto R, et al. Stress proteins in biology and medicine. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 1990: 450.
17. Schlesinger M J, et al. Stress proteins: induction and function. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 1990: 123.
18. Van Eden W, et al. Stress proteins in medicine. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1996: 578.
19. Latchman DS. Stress Proteins. Springer, 1999: 422.
20. Duesberg PH. Peter Duesberg responds. Continuum (London) 1996 4(2): 8-9.
21. Philpott P. The isolation question. How an Australian biophysicist and her simple observations have taken center stage among AIDS reappraisers. Reappraising AIDS 1997; 5(6): 1-12.
22. Johnson C. Does HIV Exist? An interview with Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, by Christine Johnson. Reappraising AIDS 1998; 6(5,6): 1-10.
23. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. The final act: Should HIV-AIDS critics question the existence of HIV? Reappraising AIDS 1999; 7(12): 1-4.
24. Christie H. Chimp chimp cheree. Wild claims of the origin of "HIV" Continuum (London) 1998/9 5(5): 3.