 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005Isolation of HIV
Voila: www.miltenyibiotec.com/download/pdf.php?file=service/tec/sp/pdf/SP-Iso-HIV1.pdf www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/088922299310449 www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm etc. Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be acceptable methods in some quarters. These people live in a strange time warp, where only techniques used in the 1970s exist, and even then only in theory. >Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be >acceptable methods in some quarters. I know... >These people live in a strange time warp, where only techniques used in >the 1970s exist, and even then only in theory. And the funny thing is one of the isolation techniques that they insist is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1). George M. Carter >"And the funny thing is one of the isolation techniques that they insist is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1)" Really, Mr. Carter! We've been pretty tolerant lately, but this lie is going too far. We were isolating viruses in a proper way (by density-gradient centrifugation) when Françoise was still in diapers. Wen will "modern virologists" finally learn that a string of nucleotides plus some enzymatic activity from the other crap in a cell culture does not a virus make? >>"And the funny thing is one of the isolation techniques that they insist >is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise >Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1)" > >Really, Mr. Carter! We've been pretty tolerant lately, but this lie is >going too far. YOU? Claiming something is a LIE???? What a joke. The paper often cited by denialists as the current gold standard is from the 70s (I know, past 1938) and Barre-Sinoussi is one of the authors. So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation? George M. Carter >"So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?" <Groannn!!> Are you in any way implying that the noble art of isolating viruses originated with the baby boomers? (they didn't even invent the term "rock 'n roll") Real scientists have been isolating viruses since the beginning of the 20th century. The proper method (the "gold standard") is not the most important part. What's crucial is the requirement that you end up with a real virus: Whole particles, free from cellular crap. And for "HIV"... that's an illusion. "So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?" Care to answer the question now? >>"So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?" > ><Groannn!!> Are you in any way implying that the noble art of isolating >viruses originated with the baby boomers? (they didn't even invent the >term "rock 'n roll") Certainly not. I asked a question about what you consider necessary for viral isolation. >Real scientists have been isolating viruses since the beginning of the >20th century. The proper method (the "gold standard") is not the most >important part. What's crucial is the requirement that you end up with a >real virus: Whole particles, free from cellular crap. And for "HIV"... >that's an illusion. Well, that's not a substantive answer. It is your opinion which I don't credit for much. George M. Carter >"Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be acceptable methods in some quarters." You have a point there, Master David. What you call "modern virological methods" are so unbelievably sloppy and off-the-wall that I feel like crying sometimes. >>"Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be >acceptable methods in some quarters." > >You have a point there, Master David. What you call "modern virological >methods" are so unbelievably sloppy and off-the-wall that I feel like >crying sometimes. Try retiring instead. >"Try retiring instead." But I did! All this clumsy muddling of the "AIDS scientists" has forced me out of retirement again. Nice try, Mr. Carter, but no cigar. The first paper (or should I say Indusrial brochure) looks promising. But "Elution Method A just yields a lysate, where no HIV comes out, but stuff that can be measured with the usual immunoassay and viral load horseshit. But I felt very excited when I came to Elution Method B, where complete virions are eluted from the column. Well, according to Miltenyibiotec, that's what's happening. But does it really? Alas, they don't show any complete virus particles (with magnetic beads attached to them) coming off the column. We are supposed to believe they're there, because they say so. The second paper I was supposed to buy, so I let tht go. If it's another disappointment, I feel worse if I've paid money for it. The third paper has been around for years, and we dissidents have kicked it around so much that it's still showing the dents. NIAID tries to convince us that HIV causes AIDS, mainly based on very questionable epidemiologic "evidence" In other words: Same old sh.t. >Nice try, Mr. Carter, but no cigar. > >The first paper (or should I say Indusrial brochure) looks promising. But >"Elution Method A just yields a lysate, where no HIV comes out, but stuff >that can be measured with the usual immunoassay and viral load horseshit. Right...your inestimable opinion. That is, hard to estimate how much lower than whale sh.t it can be? So, darling, your turn. What's your standard reference for viral isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the question. George M. Carter >"So, darling, your turn. What's your standard reference for viral isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the question." No need to dodge. But if you want an intelligent answer, you have to ask an intelligent question first. ONE standard reference? How about hundreds? Virus isolation has been around for so long that it has become textbook stuff. In the 2nd volume of "Methods in Virology", edited by Maramorosch and Koprowski (Acad. Press 1967) there are several chapters by Myron Brakke and by Anderson and Cline presenting numerous methods using centrifugational and other techniques. There are even continuous flow methods using special centrifuges, for production runs. There is ample coverage of the various problems one can encounter. And the purity of the product is the central issue. Must the final purity be optimized for electron microscopy? Or for serological tests? Just follow the cook book. Original references? There are many. Look Mr. Carter, if there really had been a virus to be found, Montagnier and/or Gallo would have found it. The techniques for isolation have been that well developed over a long period of time. These were well-trained biochemists (Montagnier is my age), and they found nothing. So there WAS nothing. This sounds like the response to the question "show me the single paper that proves the existence of HIV" that is so beloved of your ilk. HIV has been isolated to the satisfaction of virologists. Just because you choose to think otherwise, it does not make the virus disappear But no to satisfaction of biochemists! >"HIV has been isolated to the satisfaction of virologists. Just because you choose to think otherwise, it does not make the virus disappear" Then these "virologists" must be crooks or imbeciles. A virus is a virus. And don't try to pass off a string of nucleotides or some cell juice with enzymatic activity as a virus. It's just not credible. Not even to someone without any scientific training. So... How ABOUT that one paper showing the isolation of HIV? >>"So, darling, your turn. What's your standard reference for viral >isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >an intelligent question first. >ONE standard reference? How about hundreds? LOL! What a f.cking joke. The big squeal on here from denialists was "show me the ONE PAPER that proves HIV causes AIDS." Feh. f.cking hypocrite. > Virus isolation has been >around for so long that it has become textbook stuff. In the 2nd volume >of "Methods in Virology", edited by Maramorosch and Koprowski (Acad. Press >1967) there are several chapters by Myron Brakke and by Anderson and Cline >presenting numerous methods using centrifugational and other techniques. Yes. There are several techniques for viral isolation. Thank you for the reference. >There are even continuous flow methods using special centrifuges, for >production runs. There is ample coverage of the various problems one can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and/or Gallo would have found it. The techniques for isolation have been >that well developed over a long period of time. Turns out they did! >These were well-trained biochemists (Montagnier is my age), and they found >nothing. So there WAS nothing. Ah--that's not correct. Montagnier et al. found LAV, later renamed HIV-1. George M. Carter >"Ah--that's not correct. Montagnier et al. found LAV, later renamed HIV-1." Oh, don't keep on repeating that lie, Mr. Carter. I'm sure you know that interview where Montagnier admitted that they had seen particles, but they did not fit the size and shape of a retrovirus. All they really found was a cellular slop with reverse transcriptase activity. And yes, we're still asking for ONE paper describing a valid isolation of HIV. I told you there are (at least) hundreds of papers about the isolation of other viruses. A lot of them can be found in the textbook I cited. Too much work to list them all here. And you would have to go to the library anyway. >And yes, we're still asking for ONE paper describing a valid isolation of >HIV. What do you consider "valid"? >I told you there are (at least) hundreds of papers about the isolation of >other viruses. LOL. Yes. You're a hypocrite and full of so much crap you need a Q Tip to clean yer ears. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.