LANKA REPLIES TO DUESBERG (II)
The latest reaction of Peter Duesberg (1) to the ascertainment that
"HIV" does not exist (2), and to the thorough line of argument
that all claims about and characteristics ascribed to "HIV" do
not withstand specific scientific examination (3), raises questions:
- Why does he so vehemently defend something for which there are not
only no proofs but also no necessity, and which has pushed millions of
people into fear of a retroviral plague transmitted through sex and blood?
- Why do "HIV"-virologists never subject their "viruses"
to the same generally accepted standard techniques of molecular biology
as all other virologists and biologists do?
In his latest monograph of 5.11.96 Peter Duesberg introduces a more
untenable claim than ever, which neither he nor anybody else can substantiate,
to suggest again that there is a genetic entity "HlV": he equates
cloning, a standard technique of multiplying a given genetic sequence,
with virus isolation and the existence of "HIV"!
After the question of the existence of "HIV" was first posed
and people began to rethink "HIV" and to understand that with
the available, exact identification techniques of Genetics, Biochemistry
and Virology not a single aspect of the existence of "HIV" has
been proved, apparently there was a desire quickly to postulate new criteria
for its existence. That this new line of argument is put by Peter Duesberg,
known for his critique of the idea of an infectious AIDS yet otherwise
one of the godfathers of retrovirology is revealing.
But the quicksand beneath Duesberg's construct is visible:
- when instead of referring to the established criteria of structural
identification, he now postulates functional criteria: "cloning (multiplying)
is isolation", though the thing to be cloned has never been identified
as part of "HIV". No structural criteria with which one can exactly
identify genuine biological entities are to be used in the case of "HIV"
- no analysis of the form and size of an isolated virus, the kind and composition
of its proteins (e.g. if one wants to use the proteins in an approved antibody-test),
its genetic substance (e.g. if one wants to carry out the test-tube experiments
which Duesberg cites or do viral-load measurements). We are encouraged
arbitrarily to believe in only the repetition of processes, which ad
hoc were ascribed to be viral attributes.
- when he claims there are at least 19 full-length HIV genomes that
19 molecules of the complete genetic substance of "HIV" exist
in this world though this has not been shown or claimed in a single scientific
For the purpose of secure identification of a virus, the right means
- the means of structural isolation - have to be applied before one carries
out functional examinations with parts of the virus. For a clear understanding
of this important argument, the main terms are again briefly explained
A virus is an acellular form of organism, being no more and no less
than a piece of genetic substance (according to a given species of virus,
always of the same length) and a covering surrounding the genetic substance,
composed mainly of proteins (according to a given species of virus, always
of the same form and size). Viruses are stable because they have to leave
cells or even the organism in order to infect other cells or organisms
anew. Using centrifugation techniques it is no problem to separate viruses
from all contaminating components and in doing so to isolate them - then
photograph them, then represent their proteins and genetic substance in
a direct way.
In the case of "HlV" this has not been done up to today, for
"HIV" as a whole or therefore for any of its components - its
proteins or genetic substance (2, 3).
The scientific conclusion is that the existence of ,,HIV,, has so far
not been proved; the logical explanation, given that all characteristics
ascribed to "HIV" are well-known cellular entities and characteristics,
is that "HIV" never was, and the claim of the existence of "HIV"
is not sustainable.
The idea which led to the claim that HIV exists is based on a decisive
false assumption. From 1970 on some scientists and much of the public were
led to believe that since a certain biochemical function, reverse transcription
with its then unfamiliar mode of action, did not fit the dominant world
picture of genetics, it would be explained only through the claim of the
existence of a new class of viruses, the retroviruses. The shock of reverse
transcription was that it is possible to make genetic substance out of
messenger substance, which until then was believed to be impossible. However,
that the detection of reverse transcription is not, as some research directions
still assume, a sign of certain death, e.g. HIV=AIDS=Death (Gallo, Ho and
colleagues), or a reference to the "most harmless viruses in the world"
(Duesberg) was proved when it was shown that reverse transcription reflects
a repair mechanism of damage in cellular genetic material - in one revealing
experiment, the chromosomes of yeast (5). So,tragically, in 1970 the detection
of a healing process gave birth to the idea of a new class of viruses and
eventually "HlV", because astonishingly researchers were not
willing to rethink their models or listen to what nature has to tell them.
The stubbornly held notion that reverse transcription was inevitably "retroviral"
was first employed in the war against cancer as "cell-multiplying
viruses", then as the opposite, in the war against (medically induced)
AIDS as "cell-killing viruses".
It is of the greatest importance in this context that "HIV- researchers
- when trying to detect the activity of reverse transcription which is
always the first step in the attempt to identify "retroviral"
structures and characteristics, instead of using the natural genetic messenger
material, the RNA-genome of the virus which should be there if the viruses
existed - always use, without any explanation why, synthetic messenger-material
templates (6). Above all it is known that those templates are not specific
for the process of reverse transcription - that they are efficiently recognised
and transcribed by the normal, common, cellular genetic-material-producing
enzymes as well (3).
The whole idea of "HIV" would collapse if it was possible
to bring this fact to public attention.
It should be clarified: it is very normal that genetic material DNA,
natural or artificially multiplied - when put onto cells is able to enter
those cells, may integrate itself into the cells, chromosomes and eventually
may be activated to produce its proteins. The idea of vaccination with
"naked DNA" (to which I strongly object for various reasons)
is based on these known mechanisms. To add a DNA clone to cells and later
to prove its presence and probable activity is nowadays a standard experiment
in lectures on biology but in no way a proof for the existence of "HIV".
So one can only guess why molecular biologist Peter Duesberg refers
to such a standard experiment as proof of the existence of "HlV".
As the group around Eleni Eleopulos et al. has shown (3) neither
he nor anybody else has shown that the genetic pieces of "HIV"
used in the transfection experiments he cites (9) were isolated out of
a virus. Only if researchers were able to multiply from cells exactly that
genetic material which previously had been isolated from a virus, only
then the claim of virus detection would be valid: virus-isolation logically
always goes first. Or may anybody postulate new viruses, sprinkling his
or her genetic material onto cells, detecting this material in the cells
and claiming a new virus? A repeated artefact remains an artefact. To call
such re-detected DNA "infectious DNA" is conspicuously misleading.
When Peter Duesberg refers explicitly! to a publication in which we
read, "...tested blood cells of 409 antibody-positives including 144
AIDS patients and 265 healthy people. ln addition 131 antibody-negatives
were tested. HlV-specific DNA subsets ... were found in 403 of the 409
antibody-positives, but none of the antibody-negative people" (10)
while these claims and statements are not at all substantiated in the further
reading (3), it becomes obvious that he simply cannot have correctly read
this publication which clearly touches clinical aspects, and that he thereby
risks grossly violating his scientific ethics.
And when those ethical gentlemen, Duesberg’s colleagues, "two of
the world’s leading retrovirologists Robert Gallo and Robin Weiss"’
are invoked - without doubt about their claims eitherfor having "re-isolated
only HIV from Montagnier’s virus stock" without recognising any further
contamination. Peter Duesberg’s pseudo-rationale needs an explicit comment:
- If one looked for other "retroviruses’, in Montagnier’s stock,
they would be found in great numbers these days. The human genome carries
thousands of such genes that can be traced back to the action of reverse
transcription (3) and were named "retroviral elements" by "retrovirologists"
in an ad hoc decision (2).
- In Robert Gallo’s humiliated hunt for a credible new retrovirus, he
was not taking care over or notice of "grossly contaminating viruses"
but instead mixed up together - it actually happened the materials of (10)
patients, in order to be able to create "HlV" (2).
- Gallo himself wrote in the very important statement of the 27th September
1983 (after the decisive conference in Cold Spring Harbour!): " ...the
virus described by Montagnier I have never seen [sic], and I guess that
he has a mixture out of two. On the other side some of his data are interesting
but not at all conclusive ...".
When Duesberg urges: "As I pointed out in my Missing Virus reward
claim in the July/August Continuum, infectious HlV DNA has been
isolated from infected cells several times by molecular cloning",
he himself is honest enough to claim that this "infectious HIV DNA"
has been isolated not out of "AlDS"-patients but from special
"infected cells". He conceals that those cells underwent a very
particular treatment, and had DNA added before (2 3). He cites only literature
in which ex-cathedra the same claim as his is made without a single reference
that the importuned "infectious HIV DNA" was detected in or isolated
from a virus (3). Predictably, three references - Fisher et al., Barnett
et al. and Levy et al. - which Duesberg cites, to support
his claims reveal that phenomenon typical of AIDS research: in the headline
and the abstract of the publication things are exactly named and specific
claims are made that are wholly unsubstantiated in the further text. One
has only to read the smallprint of the technical comments (examples are
commented on in ref. 3, n.b. pages 16-18) to see and understand the misconceptions
behind them. When Duesberg lends his reputation and charismatic authority
to such duplicitous science with its fatal consequences, without any reflection
of the detailed critique (3) and especially without any analysis in his
field of expertise it is very precarious and alarming. The explanation
for his contrived insistence with highly technical and quasi-exact vocabulary
that contrary to the complete case of Papadopulos et al. (3),
there is somewhere out there a ,"HIV", detectable only through
cloning because "cloning... is in fact the most rigorous isolation
science has to offer for retroviruses", may be that though a genuine
retrovirus "HIV" has never identified, "retrovirologist"
Duesberg can’t or doesn’t want to admit it - for reasons that may not be
But it is increasingly beyond indulgence that Duesberg piles up claims
of 19 complete genomes (complete genetic sequences) of "HIV"
which it has been possible to artificially multiply in the form of clones,
then, to build up theories of probability bereft of significance gives
the impression that they all have the same length when no scientist before
him has ever claimed this, ever seen such things or of course ever published
such claims. ln the only reference he could have meant (4) it’s enough
to read the title "Recovery of virtually full-length HIV-1 provirus
of diverse subtypes from primary virus cultures using the polymerase chain
reaction", to understand that Duesberg wildly appropriates references
that seem suitable for his purpose without actually knowing them. The cited
method, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), is not able to construct something
like a viral genome (12). It certainly has to be clarified that concocted
and size-selected genetic molecules like "HlV"-clones can never
"represent an almost theoretical isolation" somehow on account
of their lengths being in a proportion of 1 to 100,000 against the length
of the full human genetic material. Such clones result from the process
of concocting smaller molecules, produced in a test tube using the cellular
genetics and cellular enzymes, and then, to present a "whole"
sequence, uniting the smaller sequences in theory, on paper, or in a computer,
following a blueprint from the arbitrary rules of retrovirology.
lt beggars amazement how one may state ex cathedra that
"...the high standards of virus isolation... may be relevant for crystallographers
or chemists... but are not relevant for functional isolation", when
it is those unspecified "HIV" proteins created in cultured cells
when "HIV"-researchers tried to induce reverse transcriptase
activity that are used in the "AIDS"-test, which is an instrument
of sentence over death and life. What by God is then relevant in this kind
of "science"? "Not relevant for functional isolation"!
What for heavens sake is meant by "functional"? That the "AlDS"-test
works when one believes in its function?
And it is incomprehensible how "AIDS" expert Prof. Duesberg
continues to discuss "AIDS" as if there were an autonomous clinical
picture which one may call "AlDS". Every concerned person knows
by now that "AIDS" has a different meaning on every continent,
with its different causes. "AIDS" is an inadmissible artificial
diagnosis: it has been legitimised through the introduction of "HIV"
as a constructed cause. The AlDS-myth with its exploitation of the fear
of an alleged deadly sex-plague has been blindly launched into the realm
of seemingly scientifically-based biological fact through the pseudo-rational
"HIV" detection technique. But the two terms according to the
rules of construction depend on each other. The clarification of the question
whether "HIV" exists, with the most secure method of identification
available (and this would be only the isolation of complete "HI-viruses")
is a sine qua non for dismantling the mass-delusional trance called "AIDS".
Only then may the task of research with the needed temperance and precision,
into the causality of the concrete disease complexes behind "AIDS",
be addressed (14).
The danger that the "AIDS"-critical movement splits or temporarily
weakens over the question whether "HIV" exists is therefore secondary,
and in any case subordinate to, the right to life of every person.
The common matter is to secure the human rights of every stigmatised
person, not a personal cult. The human rights do include free, and in this
case essential, access to information. Censorship - and worse, misleading,
for political or personal reasons, be it ignorance or the "will not
to know" - is endangering human lives. lt is urgent. "The one
who comes too late is punished by life" (general political knowledge).
Those who too late or never receive essential knowledge may die in the
throes of an "AIDS" diagnosis or commit suicide (sad, bad wisdom
amongst HIV+s and PWAs). That "HIV" has never been identified
as secure biological matter is of the greatest importance and must immediately
be told to every stigmatised person. No HIV - no false diagnosis AIDS -
no death sentence - no false treatment - no unnecessary suffering - no
needless dying, but new chances for people who for complex reasons got
seriously ill, amongst them being labelled as "AIDS"-cases and
"HIV"-positives at all, and then falling victim to medical shortsightedness
based on laboratory-technical constructs.
There is no (HI-)Virus. Stupid? *
Source: Continuum Feb./March 1997
1 Peter Duesberg: Duesberg’s answer of 5.11.1996 in Continuum
Vol 4, No 5, February/March 1997.
2 Stefan Lanka: Fehldiagnose AIDS? Bisher konnte das AlDS-Virus
nicht isoliert werden. Wechselwirkung, 48-53, Dezember 1994. Stefan
Lanka: HIV - reality or artefact? Continuum Vol 3, No 1, 4-9, April/May
1995. Stefan Lanka: HIV debate. Continuum Vol 3, No 2, 4-7 + 27-30,
3 Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F. Turner, John
M. Papadimitriou, David Causer: The isolation of HIV: Has it really been
achieved? The case against. Continuum Vol 4, No 3, Supplement 1-24,
4 M. O. Salimen et al.: Recovery of virtually full-length
HIV-I provirus of diverse subtypes from primary virus cultures using the
polymerase chain reaction. Virology 213, 80-86, 1995.
5 Jef D. Boeke: A little help for my ends. Nature Vol
328, 579-581,17 October 1996. Shu-Chun Teng et al.: Retrotransposon
reverse-transcriptase-mediated repair of chromosomal breaks. Nature
Vol 328, 641-644,17 October 1996.
6 Brian W. J. Mahy and Hillar O. Kangro: Virology Methods
Manual. Academis Press 1996. check any textbook on cell-biology, ref.
2+3 and e.g.:
7 Randy Schekman and Lelio Orci: Coat Proteins and Vesicle
Budding. Science, Vol 271,1526-1533,15 March 1996
8 Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Vaiendar F. Turner, John
M. Papadimitnou, David Causer: Reply to Duesberg’s letter of 5.11.1996.
Continuum Vol 4, No 5, February/March 1997.
9 Peter Duesberg: Peter Duesberg responds. Continuum,
Vol 4, No 2, 8-9, July/August 1996.
10 J.B. Jackson et al.: Human immunodeficiency
virus type I detected in all seropositive symptomatic and asymptomatic
individuals. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 28, 16-19, 1990.
11 Robert Gallo in a letter to Prof. Deinhardt dated 27.9.1983.
In: Abschlussbericht des HlV-Bluter-Untersuchungsausschusses, Deutscher
Bundestag, Drucksache 12/8591 Dokument 36, Seite 312, 25.10.1994
12 Christine Johnson: Viral Load and the PCR. Continuum
Vol 4, No 4, 32-37, November/December 1996.
13 Heinrich Kremer und Stefan Lanka: Vorsicht AlDS-Medizin
- Lebensgefahr! (Attention AlDS-Medicine - Mortal danger! a translation
is available at Continuum/London). Raum & Zeit 79, 81-90,1996.
14 Heinrich Kremer: Acquired latrogenic Death Syndrome
(AIDS). Continuum Vol 4 No 3, 8-13, November/December 1996.