 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-concept study
Lancet. 2005 Aug 13-19;366(9485):549-55. Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-concept study. Lehrman G, Hogue IB, Palmer S, Jennings C, Spina CA, Wiegand A, Landay AL, Coombs RW, Richman DD, Mellors JW, Coffin JM, Bosch RJ, Margolis DM. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 753901, USA. BACKGROUND: Persistent infection in resting CD4+ T cells prevents eradication of HIV-1. Since the chromatin remodeling enzyme histone deacetylase 1 (HDAC1) maintains latency of integrated HIV, we tested the ability of the HDAC inhibitor valproic acid to deplete persistent, latent infection in resting CD4+ T cells. PROCEDURES: We did a proof-of-concept study in four volunteers infected with HIV and on highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). After intensifying the effect of HAART with subcutaneous enfuvirtide 90 mug twice daily for 4-6 weeks to prevent the spread of HIV, we added oral valproic acid 500-750 mg twice daily to their treatment regimen for 3 months. We quantified latent infection of resting CD4+ T cells before and after augmented treatment by limiting-dilution culture of resting CD4+ T cells after ex-vivo activation. FINDINGS: The frequency of resting cell infection was stable before addition of enfuvirtide and valproic acid, but declined thereafter. This decline was significant in three of four patients (mean reduction 75%, range 68% to >84%). Patients had slight reactions to enfuvirtide at the injection site, but otherwise tolerated treatment well. INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with an HDAC inhibitor and intensified HAART safely accelerates clearance of HIV from resting CD4+ T cells in vivo, suggesting a new and practical approach to eliminate HIV infection in this persistent reservoir. This finding, though not definitive, suggests that new approaches will allow the cure of HIV in the future. PMID: 16099290 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]  SignatureGary Stein ge.stein@verizon.net > Lancet. 2005 Aug 13-19;366(9485):549-55. > > Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-concept study. > > Lehrman G, Hogue IB, Palmer S, Jennings C, Spina CA, Wiegand A, Landay AL, > Coombs RW, Richman DD, Mellors JW, Coffin JM, Bosch RJ, Margolis DM. Nice try, Gary. Now why did you fail to publish the authors conflicts of interest? Sue You mean this bit......? [Author Affiliation] Contributors G Lehrman, I B Hogue, and D M Margolis isolated resting CD4 T cells and did outgrowth assays; S Palmer, A Wiegand, J W Mellors, and J M Coffin were responsible for the one-copy HIV-RNA assays; C Jennings and A L Landay did CD8-depleted cell cultures, flow cytometry, and lymphocyte proliferation assays; R W Coombs did seminal HIV RNA assays; R J Bosch did statistical analyses; and D M Margolis designed the protocol, and oversaw its implementation. D M Margolis wrote the report with input from all authors. ****Conflict of interest statement: We declare that we have no conflict of interest.***** This is cute: "Persistent infection in resting CD4+ T cells prevents eradication of HIV-1" Even if HIV existed, there are all kinds of retroviruses, transposons, and stuff that nobody understands. If you tried to "eradicate" all of it, you'd eradicate yourself - quickly. What's intersting is the notion of "infection." If you get a paper cut, for example, it might get infected. There is a biochemical process at work at the site. In this case, however, there is no biochemical activity, and hence no danger at all. What they are saying is equivalent to someone trying to eradicate all the non-human cells in their body, to become "sterile." In fact, there are many more non-human than human cells in a human body. Some of them are beneficial, while others may be, but nobody knows. Some don't cause harm unless they are exposed to toxins or extreme stress, then they become very dangerous. If HIV existed and did what the establshment says, you would have to avoid all major stressors, which you should do in any case. Avoiding dietary stressors, such as the highly unsaturated fatty acids, is something you can do easily, for example. Exposing yourself to very toxic drugs that are supposed to "control HIV" is the worst thing you could do. These kinds of drugs are only good in extreme circumstances, when you will die within days or even hours from an infection (where there is plenty of biochemical activity involved). The idea that you should take them for years is ludicrous. > This is cute: "Persistent infection in resting CD4+ T cells prevents > eradication of HIV-1" > > Even if HIV existed, there are all kinds of retroviruses, transposons, > and stuff that nobody understands. If you tried to "eradicate" all of > it, you'd eradicate yourself - quickly. The stuff that you don't understand and the stuff that nobody understands are two seperate things. There are no HIV sequences in the human genome (unless you are infected with HIV). You are deliberately conflating exogenous retroviruses like HIV with a number of accesory genes with endogenous retroviruses and retrotransposons. Just because you can't tell the difference does not mean that other people can't. Chris Noble No, you are the one who needs a bit of education here. Start with: http://groups.msn.com/ThePerthGroup-DiscussionForum/papers.msnw?action=get_messa ge&mview=0&ID_Message=13&LastModified=4675487929809925301 > No, you are the one who needs a bit of education here. Start with: > http://groups.msn.com/ThePerthGroup-DiscussionForum/papers.msnw?action=get_messa ge&mview=0&ID_Message=13&LastModified=4675487929809925301 If you are saying that there are HIV sequences in the human genome can you provide a refernece? If you like the Perth Group hint in vary vague terms that oxidative stress somehow generates HIV RNA from the human genome can you be a bit more precise? Explain the mechanism. Would the same mechanism also spontaneously generate a fully formed influenza genome? Ebola? Please explain! Chris Noble Mr. Noble, are you, ever so subtly, suggesting that a "fully formed HIV-genome" has ever been spontaneously generated from the human genome? That's really crass! How would they know this "HIV genome" is really from HIV, when they have no pure HIV preparation to compare it with? > Mr. Noble, are you, ever so subtly, suggesting that a "fully formed > HIV-genome" has ever been spontaneously generated from the human genome? > That's really crass! How would they know this "HIV genome" is really from > HIV, when they have no pure HIV preparation to compare it with? You can make that claim as many times a day as you need to claster but simply repeating it over and over does not make it true. Gary Stein >>"That's really crass! How would they know this "HIV genome" is really from HIV, when they have no pure HIV preparation to compare it with?" >"You can make that claim as many times a day as you need to claster but simply repeating it over and over does not make it true." That's no claim, Mr. Stein. YOU make the claim, I supply the denial. But I must congratulate you: YOU are hereby put in a position where you can shut me up forever. Just send me a sample of HIV, and I'll do the identification and characterization myself. And if you don't trust me, send it to another biochemist who knows about viruses. But in that case I want to be present for the identification, because I don't trust you either. > >>"That's really crass! How would they know this "HIV genome" is really > from HIV, when they have no pure HIV preparation to compare it with?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > shut me up forever. Just send me a sample of HIV, and I'll do the > identification and characterization myself. Where? What with? If you are going to make the claim that you can identify and characterise retroviruses then YOU are in a position to shut us all up. Simply order some HIV or "HIV" and characterise it. http://www.aidsreagent.org/ecommerce/default.cfm http://www.nibsc.ac.uk/spotlight/aidsreagent/CFAR_Catalogue_2005/Reagent Listings/Section 2 Viruses.pdf Chris Noble >"Simply order some HIV or "HIV" and characterise it." I tried, but all I get is excuses. They're willing to send a tissue culture which they say contains HIV. But they're unable to purify the virus particles. > >"Simply order some HIV or "HIV" and characterise it." > > I tried, but all I get is excuses. Bullshit. You are bluffing and I'm calling you on it. > They're willing to send a tissue > culture which they say contains HIV. But they're unable to purify the > virus particles. Reagent Name:HIV-1 LAI Biohazardous:Yes Release Category:B What is a release category? Provided:1 vial cell-free virus. Description:Utilizes CXCR4. Host:Human PBMCs or CEM cells. Special Characteristics:Subtype B virus isolated in France from an AIDS patient in January, 1983. First strain of HIV-1 to be isolated in the laboratory. Utilizes CXCR4. Gen Bank:X01762 Contributor:Dr. Jean-Marie Bechet and Dr. Luc Montagnier, courtesy of the MRC AIDS Directed Programme. Reference:BarrT-Sinoussi F, et al. Science 220:868, 1983. Wain-Hobson S, et al Science 252:961, 1991. Reagent Name:HIV-1 89.6 Biohazardous:Yes Release Category:CWhat is a release category? Provided:1 vial cell-free virus. Description:R5 and X4 (SI). Host:Primary PBMCs and primary lymphocytes. Also replicates in CEMx174 and MT-2 cells, but not in most transformed cell lines. Growth in CEMx174 does not affect tropism for macrophages. Does not replicate in most other continuous cell lines. Special Characteristics:Subtype B virus originally isolated from a mixed PBMC culture from an AIDS patient. This preparation was obtained from CEMx174 cells. Replicates to high titers in primary human macrophages, primary human lymphocytes, CEMx174, and MT-2 cells; syncytium-forming and extremely cytopathic. An infectious molecular clone of this isolate (Catalog #3552) is also available. Gen Bank:U39362 Contributor:Dr. Ronald Collman. Reference:Collman R, et al. J Virol 66:7517, 1992. Go ahead Claster. Order some HIV. What lab are you going to your analysis in? Your kitchen? You have made the claim that you have the facilities to identify and characterise retroviruses. Provide some evidence for your claim. Order some HIV. No excuses! Chris Noble >"Go ahead Claster. Order some HIV. What lab are you going to your analysis in? Your kitchen? You have made the claim that you have the facilities to identify and characterise retroviruses. Provide some evidence for your claim." Get real, Mr. Noble. Do you really think I would have to use my kitchen? No, I'd simply use a virus lab at my Alma mater, the Univ. of Leiden. Several people who work there were younger students when I was there. They'd be glad to let me use their facilities as an alumnus. But I won't bother trying to order those vials of "cell-free virus" you offered (do you also sell used cars?) I won't spend money on stuff that is misrepresented. Those vials simply contain supernatant of the cell cultures they use to grow whatever it is they're growing. There are no virus particles in those vials (otherwise they would have published EM's of them). Nothing at all that I could put in an analytical utracentrifuge, and get a sharp peak. Just some assorted small crap that's only good for gel electrophoresis (an overrated technique that everybody uses, because they're unable to do anything else). Not a good idea. Not worth coming out of retirement for. >>"Go ahead Claster. Order some HIV. What lab are you going to your analysis >in? Your kitchen? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Get real, Mr. Noble. Do you really think I would have to use my kitchen? >No, I'd simply use a virus lab at my Alma mater, the Univ. of Leiden. THat is probably the most outrageous claim I've yet heard you make. > >"Go ahead Claster. Order some HIV. What lab are you going to your analysis > in? Your kitchen? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Several people who work there were younger students when I was there. > They'd be glad to let me use their facilities as an alumnus. You are still bluffing. Will you provide names? > But I won't bother trying to order those vials of "cell-free virus" you > offered (do you also sell used cars?) I won't spend money on stuff that is > misrepresented. How do you know there is any misrepresentation until you look? Sounds like Preconceptual Science to me. It sounds like the church in Galileo's time refusing to look through his telescope. > Those vials simply contain supernatant of the cell > cultures they use to grow whatever it is they're growing. There are no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > everybody uses, because they're unable to do anything else). > Not a good idea. Not worth coming out of retirement for. Pontificating from your armchair is much easier than actually doing something. Isn't it? You made the challenge to Gary to send you some HIV and then you would characterise it. This was just you bluffing. You are in no posistion to do anything of the sort. Chris Noble >"You are still bluffing. Will you provide names?" No, I'm not bluffing. I'm thinking of biochemists who are younger than I am, and are still working at the U. of Leiden. people like Barend kraal, Cees Pleij, John Bol. >"How do you know there is any misrepresentation until you look?" Trust me. I *know* what kind of crap is in those vials. (Hint: It's not any kind of virus). >"Pontificating from your armchair is much easier than actually doing something. Isn't it?" Yes it is. But I used to 'do something', in the days that science was still science, without the obligatory exercises that are customary in these days of pseudo-science. > >"You are still bluffing. Will you provide names?" > > No, I'm not bluffing. I'm thinking of biochemists who are younger than I > am, and are still working at the U. of Leiden. people like Barend kraal, > Cees Pleij, John Bol. So If I were to email these people and tell them that you claim that you can identify and characterise retroviruses using their labs what would they say? > >"How do you know there is any misrepresentation until you look?" > > Trust me. I *know* what kind of crap is in those vials. (Hint: It's not > any kind of virus). I don't trust you. You are too gutless to bother looking. Preconceptual Science. I already *know* that Jupiter doesn't have moons. I don't have to look through a telescope. > >"Pontificating from your armchair is much easier than actually doing > something. Isn't it?" > > Yes it is. But I used to 'do something', in the days that science was > still science, without the obligatory exercises that are customary in > these days of pseudo-science. Bluffing about having access to labs is pseudoscience. Chris Noble >> >"How do you know there is any misrepresentation until you look?" >> >> Trust me. I *know* what kind of crap is in those vials. (Hint: It's not >> any kind of virus). > >I don't trust you. You are too gutless to bother looking. Even if, as he says, Godschalk can use a lab at the University of Leiden, how likely is it that he can use it without explaining the purpose and methods of his experiment beforehand and being assisted (watched) while he performs it? The "shyness effect" has ruined the results of many an experiment that would have worked if nobody else had been watching. Perhaps if I sent Dr. G. a spoon he'd send it back mysteriously bent. SignatureDavid Canzi "Each of these arguments by itself is invalid, but taken collectively they constitute an impressive body of evidence." (Skeptical Inquirer, Jul-Aug, 2005) Ah, Mr. Canzi, you're back! Completely recovered? Not hurting anymore? >"Even if, as he says, Godschalk can use a lab at the University of Leiden, how likely is it that he can use it without explaining the purpose and methods of his experiment beforehand and being assisted (watched) while he performs it? The "shyness effect" has ruined the results of many an experiment that would have worked if nobody else had been watching." But of course I would explain purpose and methods beforehand. I can even tell you right here and now what I would do first: I would run an aliquot of the "HIV prep" in the analytical ultracentrifuge. If there are virus particles in the sample, I would be able to see a clear peak, with a sedimentation coefficient commensurate with a virus particle of around 100 nm. If all there is to see is a slow-sedimenting skewed boundary, then there can be any amount of crap, but no virus. My investigation would be complete at that point. And everybody would be invited to watch me perform that crucial experiment. By the way: Your motto at the end of your post vilolates my sense of math. It says in effect something like "the total is more than the sum of the parts" or 2 + 2 = 5 > ... I would run an ... "HIV prep" in the analytical ultracentrifuge. Wow, that's TEN syllables! B/ >Ah, Mr. Canzi, you're back! Completely recovered? Not hurting anymore? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >complete at that point. And everybody would be invited to watch me >perform that crucial experiment. When you tell us what you *would* do *if* you were doing this experiment that we know you *won't* do, you provide us no evidence about your knowledge or skill at anything except, perhaps, writing fiction. Surely your procedure can be described more clearly. If I understand you correctly, you say you would place some of the HIV prep on the surface of another liquid -- water or salt water perhaps -- centrifuge it and look, at the level where something the size and density of HIV would be expected to end up, for a layer of liquid with a different tint from the liquid above and below it. Chris Noble and Nick Bennett could no doubt make what they write as intentionally hard to understand as what you wrote above. They don't. Honest people *want* to be understood. >By the way: Your motto at the end of your post vilolates my sense of math. > It says in effect something like "the total is more than the sum of the >parts" or 2 + 2 = 5 If you can't figure out the purpose of that quote, you're not very bright, and if you're just feigning ignorance you're not honest. SignatureDavid Canzi "Each of these arguments by itself is invalid, but taken collectively they constitute an impressive body of evidence." (Skeptical Inquirer, Jul-Aug, 2005) >"If I understand you correctly, you say you would place some of the HIV prep on the surface of another liquid -- water or salt water perhaps -- centrifuge it and look, at the level where something the size and density of HIV would be expected to end up, for a layer of liquid with a different tint from the liquid above and below it." No Mr. Canzi, you don't understand correctly. It's much simpler than that. I would put the alleged HIV prep in a Spinco model E cell (one of those cylinders with quartz windows at each end), and spin it in the analytical ultracentrifuge at about 40,000 rpm. An ordinary sedimentation run, to determine a sedimentation coefficient. Every macromolecule has a known sed. coeff., but none has ever been determined for HIV. If such a virus particle is present, you see a sharp peak with the Schlieren optical system. But because the virus concentration (if there is a virus at all) is expected to be very low, it will probably be necessary to use UV optics. (Viruses have strong UV absorption at 260 nm) Then you should see a sharp boundary moving toward the bottom of the cell. If you don't, then there is no virus. Very simple experiment. Has anybody done it? Probably, but if so they have swept the result under the rug. If they had been able to come up with a clear sedimentation pattern, they would have presented it, accompanied by a brass band, and published it in Science. This is the only experiment I would have to perform. And I'm sure there would be no virus showing up, after which my work would be done. Now is this really so hard to understand? I've always been lauded as a gifted teacher. I can teach a monkey to read. Why then are you guys so dense? I'm very su > >"If I understand you correctly, you say you would place some of the HIV > prep on the surface of another liquid -- water or salt water perhaps -- [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > they would have presented it, accompanied by a brass band, and published > it in Science. This sounds like something you remember vaguely from work done on TMV half a century ago. The Spinco model E ultracentrifuge dates back to the 1940's. The part of the virus that absorbs at 260nm is the nucleic acids. There are numerous papers demonstrating that RNA is found in the density fractions around 1.16 g/ml together with HIV structural proteins and HIV reverse transcriptase. The fact that all of these are found in the same fractions would have to be a massive coincidence if they weren't all part of the one virion. > This is the only experiment I would have to perform. And I'm sure there > would be no virus showing up, after which my work would be done. Well what are you waiting for? Go for it. A Nobel prize awaits you. Order some "HIV" do your experiments and publish your results. > Now is this really so hard to understand? I've always been lauded as a > gifted teacher. I can teach a monkey to read. Why then are you guys so > dense? The only thing that is hard to understand is how you expect anyone to believe what you say. You are bullshitting. Chris Noble > > >"If I understand you correctly, you say you would place some of the HIV > > prep on the surface of another liquid -- water or salt water perhaps -- [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > same fractions would have to be a massive coincidence if they weren't > all part of the one virion. As an example look at this paper from 1984. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6203528&query_hl=36 Figure 1 shows RNA and RT activity peaking in the same density fractions. Chris Noble >"The part of the virus that absorbs at 260nm is the nucleic acids. There are numerous papers demonstrating that RNA is found in the density fractions around 1.16 g/ml together with HIV structural proteins and HIV reverse transcriptase. The fact that all of these are found in the same fractions would have to be a massive coincidence if they weren't all part of the one virion." The point where your thinking goes wrong lies in the last word. It should be formulated as: "...if they weren't all part of the one *nucleorotein*." Not every nucleoprotein, or loose aggregation of proteins and nucleic acid is a virus. But if you're indoctrinated from the very start of your studies to believe that you're dealing with HIV, you learn to make this jump automatically. But that doesn't make it real. >"This sounds like something you remember vaguely from work done on TMV half a century ago. The Spinco model E ultracentrifuge dates back to the 1940's." No, the Spinco model E started to appear in the late 1950's. In those days (and the 2 decades that followed) there were still researchers who knew how to use them. People like Howard Schachman, David Yphantis, Jesse Beams, and many others. These days the labs are populated with researchers who wouldn't even be able to operate equipment as complicated as a vacuum cleaner. All they can do is examine smudges on strips obtained from gel electrophoresis. >"Well what are you waiting for? Go for it. A Nobel prize awaits you." A Nobel prize? I don't think so. All that would await me is a hit man. I would be doing many people out of a lot of money. That's no way to make yourself well-liked. "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message > All that would await me is a hit man. ... How many mirrors do you have in your trailer? > >"This sounds like something you remember vaguely from work done on TMV > half a century ago. > The Spinco model E ultracentrifuge dates back to the 1940's." > > No, the Spinco model E started to appear in the late 1950's. No, 1947 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/72505857/ABSTRACT > In those > days (and the 2 decades that followed) there were still researchers who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would be doing many people out of a lot of money. That's no way to make > yourself well-liked. So now you are saying you could do this work in a lab in Leiden but you won't because you would be shot by the pharmaco hit squad? I can demonstrate cold-fusion in my kitchen but I am too afraid to show anyone because the oil companies are out to get me. Chris Noble >"So now you are saying you could do this work in a lab in Leiden but you won't because you would be shot by the pharmaco hit squad?" Yes, I could do this work in a lab in Leiden, but I won't because I'm too lazy to do any work on material that's insignificant and uninteresting to begin with. And if I did the work and got the expected results, nobody would be thankful. First I would be inhibited from publishing it, and if I persevered, then the hit man would show up. Nothing new, those things happen. >>"So now you are saying you could do this work in a lab in Leiden but you >won't because you would be shot by the pharmaco hit squad?" > >Yes, I could do this work in a lab in Leiden, but I won't because I'm too >lazy to do any work on material that's insignificant and uninteresting to >begin with. Wow. Do you use a Q Tip? Cause you're so full of sh.t, the ears are exuding, honey. >"So If I were to email these people and tell them that you claim that you can identify and characterise retroviruses using their labs what would they say?" I don't know. I haven't asked them yet. But maybe you could e-mail them. Go right ahead. What exactly is so strange about going back to the university department where I've gotten my PhD, and where I've been a major presence for many years? There are younger men there on the faculty who remember me, so it's not such a wild idea. A few years ago there were still close friends of mine there, but they've passed away, unfortunately. Getting access to research equipment at your Alma mater is no big deal for an alumnus. Note that among the equipment I mentioned, I didn't even include an electron microscope. There's a reason for that: If those HIV preparations you were plugging really contained any virus particles, the electron micrographs showing them would be all over the scientific literature. But all that is being show are pictures of cellular debris or out-and-out fakes. Therefore, I know ahead of time that there will be no virus particles. It would take only one centrifuge run to prove that. Now really, Mr. Noble, you suspect ME of bluffing? snip >Now really, Mr. Noble, you suspect ME of bluffing? Ah...not just Chris. Mostly, we think you're a big ole lyin' sack o' sh.t, like W and Cheney and that lot of liars. Be delighted to be proven wrong however. George M. Carter >"Ah...not just Chris. Mostly, we think you're a big ole lyin' sack o'sh.t, like W and Cheney and that lot of liars." You really know how to hurt a guy. Oh, I've been called worse things (by you among others), but the association with Cheney is a bit much! > >"So If I were to email these people and tell them that you claim that you > can identify and characterise retroviruses using their labs what > would they say?" > > I don't know. I haven't asked them yet. But maybe you could e-mail them. > Go right ahead. What would you predict they would say? When was the last time you spoke to them? Are they aware of your activities in HIV Denial. > What exactly is so strange about going back to the university department > where I've gotten my PhD, and where I've been a major presence for many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Getting access to research equipment at your Alma mater is no big deal for > an alumnus. Sure. > Note that among the equipment I mentioned, I didn't even include an > electron microscope. There's a reason for that: If those HIV > preparations you were plugging really contained any virus particles, the > electron micrographs showing them would be all over the scientific > literature. But all that is being show are pictures of cellular debris or > out-and-out fakes. There are many studies that have investigated the microstructure of HIV. Guess what. They get their HIV from these repositories. http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/77/22/11896?view=long&pmid=14581526 "HIV LAI was obtained from the NIH AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program." FIG. 1. Isolated HIV particles. AFM images of particles obtained by centrifugation of the culture medium from an HIV-infected cultured human lymphocytic cell line are shown. > Therefore, I know ahead of time that there will be no virus particles. It > would take only one centrifuge run to prove that. You already know! Jupiter has no moons. I know ahead of time that there will be no moons. It would only take one glance through a telescope. But it is not worth wasting my time. > Now really, Mr. Noble, you suspect ME of bluffing? Yes. In fact it is more than a suspicion. It is a firm conviction. You could however alter my opinion by actually doing what you say you can do. Chris Noble Thank you for the reference, Mr. Noble. I really enjoyed that paper, because it is good solid work. Very unlike all those preposterous clinical an epidemiological studies with 13 authors or so. (This one had only four. See that my analysis was right? The less authors, the better the paper). I think they did a very good job, and they know their technique, which they have also used on other viruses. I am not an expert on electron microscopy, but I have a close friend who is. Yet, there is ample room for differing evaluations of their data. Naturally, theirs was fixed from the very start (look at the bottom of the paper to see who funded it). So they had to sell these particles as HIV. A more free-thinking individual might still wonder what these particles really are. There are many types of microvesicles resulting from cell cultures that cannot be considered viruses. Even the EM's taken from "uninfected" cell cultures showed a great variety in their surface. What struck me further was the variability in size of the particles (Yes, that would show up in the ultracentrifuge!). And also: "Capsids containing nucleic acid were not seen, suggesting that the capsids were even more fragile than the envelope and were totally degraded and lost." That's what worries me. If HIV is supposed to be an infectious entity, able to infect people, then how could it be so fragile? Apart from that, the particles studied appear to be soft and malleable. Virus nucleocapsids are rigid and stable. They can be broken up by extreme alkalinity (pH 12), by detergents, or heavy metals, but without these extremes they are quite rigid. Yet, this paper is a delight, after all those vivisection trials on poor African people. >"Yes. In fact it is more than a suspicion. It is a firm conviction. You could however alter my opinion by actually doing what you say you can do." Maybe I will. I'd have to talk to a few people in Leiden. Maybe I'll even put it to the folks at the U. of Amsterdam as a challenge. There's a whole bunch of HIV parasites there (There were 65 "AIDS deaths" in 2004, out of 136,000 total deaths nationwide) And no, it wasn't HAART causing the number to be so small. > Thank you for the reference, Mr. Noble. I really enjoyed that paper, > because it is good solid work. Very unlike all those preposterous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they have also used on other viruses. I am not an expert on electron > microscopy, but I have a close friend who is. Reading the title of the paper would have told you that the technique used to image the virus was atomic force microscopy not electron microscopy. > Yet, there is ample room for differing evaluations of their data. > Naturally, theirs was fixed from the very start (look at the bottom of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > capsids were even more fragile than the envelope and were totally degraded > and lost." Read this paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12660176&itool=iconfft&query_hl=34 http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v22/n7/abs/7595054a.html Figure 2 shows some high resolution EMs of HIV with gp120 spikes and well defined conical cores. Microvesicles don't have conical cores. They also managed to lyse the HIV to obtain purified cores. Again they have nice EMs. > That's what worries me. If HIV is supposed to be an infectious entity, > able to infect people, then how could it be so fragile? The environment in which the HIV is found during transmission does not contain detergents at concentrations sufficient to lyse the virions. No. I wouldn't suggest shampoo as an anti-HIV prevention. Damaging mucosal linings can make transmission more probable. > Apart from that, > the particles studied appear to be soft and malleable. Virus [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Maybe I will. I'd have to talk to a few people in Leiden. Previously you claimed you had attempted to order HIV so you could do experiments on it. "I tried, but all I get is excuses. They're willing to send a tissue culture which they say contains HIV. But they're unable to purify the virus particles. " You were lying. Chris Noble > The environment in which the HIV is found during transmission does not > contain detergents at concentrations sufficient to lyse the virions. > > No. I wouldn't suggest shampoo as an anti-HIV prevention. Damaging > mucosal linings can make transmission more probable. Here I go responding to myself again. The idea isn't as stupid as I originally thought. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11899262&query_hl=41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11451679&query_hl=41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12150703&query_hl=41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15888210&query_hl=41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=10618073&query_hl=41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=9925525&query_hl=41 Chris Noble "Chris Noble" <ChrisJNoble@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Here I go responding to myself again. cuz no one else gives a sh.t about you Mom I see what you mean. But just look at the last paper you quoted: 13 authors again! So we really couldn't expect anything that makes sense. Well, I hope this doesn't set a trend, pussies and a.ses getting rinsed with SDS. Really not healthy. (I think this is the first time we agree on something). But now that they're proposing crazy things anyway: How about treating genitals with ethyl mercuric nitrate? Does a great job destroying viruses. >"Figure 2 shows some high resolution EMs of HIV with gp120 spikes and well defined conical cores. Microvesicles don't have conical cores. They also managed to lyse the HIV to obtain purified cores. Again they have nice EMs." They are indeed nice particles. But I still worry about the fact that the chance of them being lab artefacts is major. The cores are not all conical; some are tubular. The authors make an attempt to explain the magically versatile nature of HIV by saying: "The extraordinary flexibility observed in the assembly of the mature core appears to be well suited to accommodating variation and hence there may be no single structure for the infectious virion." Yeah. Either that or there is no single infectious virion in their collection. These virus-like particles have a habit of assembling themselves (Caspar and Klug established this in the early sixties). So from a culture of rapidly dividing cells we can expect all kind of particles to emerge. >"The environment in which the HIV is found during transmission does not contain detergents at concentrations sufficient to lyse the virions." True, but then I still wonder why no virus particles can be isolated from the blood serum or lymph nodes of AIDS patients. Is it so unstable that it breaks down even under very mild conditions (such as a sucrose or CsCl gradient)? Or is it simply not there? >>>"Previously you claimed you had attempted to order HIV so you could do experiments on it." >>"I tried, but all I get is excuses. They're willing to send a tissue culture which they say contains HIV. But they're unable to purify the virus particles. " >"You were lying. " Not really. I was joking. Sure, I could do that (they're not all that paranoid here about letting you carry a virus into their labs), but it would be futile. Nobody seems to be able to come up with a prep that contains virus particles and nothing more. > >"Figure 2 shows some high resolution EMs of HIV with gp120 spikes and well > defined conical cores. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > from a culture of rapidly dividing cells we can expect all kind of > particles to emerge. Virus-like particles don't have electron-translucent cores. You can bullshit all you want but they won't go away through wishful thinking. > >"The environment in which the HIV is found during transmission does not > contain detergents at concentrations sufficient to lyse the virions." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it breaks down even under very mild conditions (such as a sucrose or CsCl > gradient)? Or is it simply not there? Sucrose solutions have high osmotic pressure this is why honey and plain sugar syrup can be used as antibacterial agents to treat wounds. Sugar syrup kills bacteria by osmotic lysis. Optiprep is iso-osmotic and has been used in later papers to obtain high purity HIV. If you want to do some maths then get estimates of the viral load of HIV in blood and calculate how much blood would be needed to produce a pellet of 1mm in diameter of 100% viral particles. > >>>"Previously you claimed you had attempted to order HIV so you could do > experiments on it." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not really. I was joking. When you said "I tried, but all I get is excuses" you were saying something that was not true. You had not tried. As you had not tried you had not received any excuses. You knew you were saying something that was not true. You were lying. Lying is no joking matter. > Sure, I could do that (they're not all that > paranoid here about letting you carry a virus into their labs), but it > would be futile. Only a fool would let you into their lab with a HIV sample. There is nothing paranoid about that only rational caution. > Nobody seems to be able to come up with a prep that > contains virus particles and nothing more. They are not claiming to contain 100% virus particles. They are cell free suspensions of infectious HIV. If you were not bluffing you could order some and see for yourself. Chris Noble >"Virus-like particles don't have electron-translucent cores. You can bullshit all you want but they won't go away through wishful thinking." Microvesicles incorporate all kind of cellular material, such as proteins and even RNA. Furthermore: The kind of pictures I've come across in the past 10 years or so are often amazing. I've even seen particles with "cone-shaped cores", but unfortunately, these cores looked exactly like... the chloroplasts I've seen in plant cells. But hey, if there's so much money involved, what's a little fraud among friends? >"You knew you were saying something that was not true. You were lying. Lying is no joking matter." My, my, you ARE a humorless plurk, aren't you? I thought everybody would get it right away: If I order a (reasonably) pure HIV-preparation, there's nobody who can fill the order. You claim they can, so who's lying? >"Only a fool would let you into their lab with a HIV sample. There is nothing paranoid about that only rational caution." Oh really? Let me enlighten you: When I landed at J.F. Kennedy Airport, I was asked: "Do you have any plants or seeds with you?" I answered truthfully "No". They didn't ask: "Do you have a vial in your pocket with enough of a plant virus to wipe out all the dogwoods in Virginia?" I was glad they didn't ask, because I did have such a vial in my pocket. In Australia, meat and even cheese are also 'verboten'. In Britain, they incarcerate your pet for 6 months, before returning it to you, dead or alive. All typical cases of Anglosaxon paranoia. I just read that there are only 2 places in the world where they have a depository of smallpox virus: At Fort Detrick, of course (where else?), and somewhere in Siberia. Well, I've got news for them: Dutch Army conscripts were working with that virus in the same lab where I worked at Leiden U. As I said, continental Europeans are not that squeamish. And I don't see how HIV, a virus that is either harmless or doesn't exist at all, could scare anybody with even half a brain. >"They are not claiming to contain 100% virus particles. They are cell free suspensions of infectious HIV. If you were not bluffing you could order some and see for yourself." I know exactly what they contain: Supernatant of a cell culture. You can find just about anything in there that's soluble in water or a buffer solution, except HIV. Naw, I'm not bluffing; I'm lazy. And I hate to work on something fictional like HIV. I would really start to feel dumb. >>"Virus-like particles don't have electron-translucent cores. You can >bullshit all you want but they won't go away through wishful thinking." > >Microvesicles incorporate all kind of cellular material, such as proteins >and even RNA. Microvesicles are indistinguishable to you from viruses. I see. >Furthermore: The kind of pictures I've come across in the past 10 years or >so are often amazing. I've even seen particles with "cone-shaped cores", >but unfortunately, these cores looked exactly like... the chloroplasts >I've seen in plant cells. Chloroplasts look like cones. I'm sure they're otherwise indistinguishable by any other means than a visual inspection, right? Yes. Sure. Indeed. You're a very credible fellow. I hope your students forgot everything you taught them. It would be such a waste of neural power to have bothered remembering any of the random ditherings you try to pass off as some kind of knowledge. George M. Carter > >"Virus-like particles don't have electron-translucent cores. You can > bullshit all you want but they won't go away through wishful thinking." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but unfortunately, these cores looked exactly like... the chloroplasts > I've seen in plant cells. Chloroplasts are ~ 100nm long and look like these cores in figure 3 in this paper? http://www.nature.com/emboj/journal/v22/n7/full/7595054a.html Bullshit. > But hey, if there's so much money involved, what's a little fraud among > friends? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > get it right away: If I order a (reasonably) pure HIV-preparation, there's > nobody who can fill the order. You claim they can, so who's lying? The simple answer is you are lying. You claimed you had tried to order HIV. You were lying. Everybody understood you straight away. > >"Only a fool would let you into their lab with a HIV sample. There is > nothing paranoid about that only rational caution." [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Naw, I'm not bluffing; I'm lazy. And I hate to work on something > fictional like HIV. I would really start to feel dumb. You are both lazy and bluffing. One of the problems of being both a liar and lazy is that people inevitably catch you in lies. Do you want me to email people at Leiden U and ask them about your planned experiments on HIV? Chris Noble snip... >Do you want me to email people at Leiden U and ask them about your >planned experiments on HIV? I do. Happy to help! Here's a start: http://www.leiden.edu/ see perhaps http://www.science.leidenuniv.nl/graduateschool/index.php3?m=43&c=85 and http://www.lacdr.nl/index.php3?m=4&c=9 George M. Carter Oh, stop blundering around, Mr. Carter. Thry this link: http://www.ibl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=176&c=207&garb=0.16522000452352703&session= >Oh, stop blundering around, Mr. Carter. Thry this link: > >http://www.ibl.leidenuniv.nl/index.php3?m=176&c=207&garb=0.16522000452352703&session= Why thank you, dear. And remind me again--who should we say is calling? >"And remind me again--who should we say is calling?" Godschalk, Wilhelm Godschalk. And you, too, have a happy Thanksgiving. You guys are growing on me. >>"And remind me again--who should we say is calling?" > >Godschalk, Wilhelm Godschalk. And you, too, have a happy Thanksgiving. >You guys are growing on me. I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? An email perhaps? George M. Carter >"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? An email perhaps?" Try Dr. John Bol, he knows me. email will be fine, I guess. >>"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? >An email perhaps?" > >Try Dr. John Bol, he knows me. email will be fine, I guess. Will do! >>"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? >An email perhaps?" > >Try Dr. John Bol, he knows me. email will be fine, I guess. I have sent an email of inquiry to him and others. I look forward to hearing their comments. If you would care to delineate the experiment you intend to run, I'm happy to pass it along. George M. Carter >>"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? >An email perhaps?" > >Try Dr. John Bol, he knows me. email will be fine, I guess. Guess? You don't know? Apparently he's no longer there. From: MAILER-DAEMON@fwncism6.gorlaeus.net (Mail Delivery System) Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender To: fiar@verizon.net This is the Postfix program at host fwncism6.gorlaeus.net. I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below. For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster> If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message. The Postfix program <bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl>: host fwncism1.gorlaeus.net[132.229.170.40] said: 550 <bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl>: User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command) Reporting-MTA: dns; fwncism6.gorlaeus.net Arrival-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 01:42:37 +0100 (CET) Final-Recipient: rfc822; bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host fwncism1.gorlaeus.net[132.229.170.40] said: 550 <bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl>: User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command) George, remember to tell U of L how Willy Godschalk accuses them of experimentation with live smallpox virus on army recruits. > >>"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? > >An email perhaps?" [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > <bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl>: User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO > command) Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl Also B.Kraal@chem.leidenuniv.nl and C.Pley@chem.leidenuniv.nl No reply from my email so far. Trying again. Chris Noble >> >>"I'll let you know what they say--now--who would be best to inquire with? >> >An email perhaps?" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > No reply from my email so far. Trying again. Or just <someone@leidenuniv.nl .... that would automatically find 'chem' which is the name of one of the mail servers. A message will bounce as 'user unknown' if someone's adddress has moved off of a specific mail server to another and the specific one is in the address. B/ >Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl > >Also B.Kraal@chem.leidenuniv.nl and C.Pley@chem.leidenuniv.nl > >No reply from my email so far. Trying again. So far, no reply here either. Sent a note to hooykaas@biology.leidenuniv.nl as well. George M. Carter > >Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So far, no reply here either. Sent a note to > hooykaas@biology.leidenuniv.nl as well. I received a reply from Prof Bol and he gave me permission to post it here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Noble, A person named Wilhelm Godschalk obtained a Ph.D. degree at Leiden University in 1964. His Ph.D. research was on a plant virus (turnip yellow mosaic virus). To my knowledge, he has not been active in virology since that time and there have been no formal interactions between Dr. Godschalk and Leiden University after he completed his Ph.D. research. With kind regards, John F. Bol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Bol also stated that the last time he had seen Godschalk was about 25 years ago and that Godschalk does not to his knowledge have access to facilities at the University of Leiden. I ask Iconoclaster to either provide some evidence for the claims that he previously made or admit that he was lying. Chris Noble Don't hold your breath Chris What do you want to bet that Claster completely ignores this post. It is no surprise that Prof. Bol states "To my knowledge, he has not been active in virology" when referring to Godschalk. That has been clearly evident by his posts to MHA his knowledge is rooted in work done in the 1950's that he was taught in the early 1960's and has not progressed at all since that time. Gary Stein >> >Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Chris Noble >> >Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl >> > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Chris Noble Chris - post ALL the communications that comprise your conversations with Prof Bol - including ALL headers. I ask Chris Noble to provide the evidence for HIS claims. susie Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what it appears to be: a FORGERY. Meantime, let's take a look at Chris Noble's convoluted header from the post in which he published the alleged Prof Bol statements out of their full and verifiable context. Of course, the pharmaceutical public relations contractors on this newsgroup have a rich history of forgeries on this and other newsgroups. In fact, forgery is one of their favorite dirty tricks. susie ==== Path: be02!atl-c01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Chris Noble" <ChrisJNoble@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: misc.health.aids Subject: Re: Depletion of latent HIV-1 infection in vivo: a proof-of-conc Date: 1 Dec 2005 15:35:56 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 44 Message-ID: <1133480156.656673.19730@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <2tm8o1he9nmi8q7v9vi94ncd8qb1e514tc@4ax.com> <32fbc8d80f9e928fb336101f61a79456@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> <a39bo1pjn6ekbulp0idh9de6rc1lucav61@4ax.com> <d2f5d79232825d38d339bc5a107992ac@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> <u3uco1lu7b30lkt970954rhia7h50rgeq1@4ax.com> <1fb62027896bf3ca0e12969bb12b2478@localhost.talkabouthealthnetwork.com> <4glgo11iase851iqo3hdhp0a12dsrn7kjk@4ax.com> <1133138814.481192.81880@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <fp3no1p2qe03imql7apqs3aliht9ugm840@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.102.128.60 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1133480161 11367 127.0.0.1 (1 Dec 2005 23:36:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 23:36:01 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <fp3no1p2qe03imql7apqs3aliht9ugm840@4ax.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.2; Linux) (KHTML, like Gecko),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 proxy2.uq.edu.au:80 (squid/2.5.STABLE9) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=130.102.128.60; posting-account=p8KougwAAABYNExpf6NJ-iXIaY4xHqvg Xref: usenetserver.com misc.health.aids:174291 X-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:36:01 EST (be02) Just because you don't know how to read a header Frod don't assume that other readers are as technically challenged as you are. If your so concerned about Prof Bol's statement his email address has been posted numerous times in this thread so why don't you just drop him a note and ask him if he wrote what Chris says he did. That's to logical for you and defeats your ability to launch ad hominem attacks against Chris so I am sure you will fabricate some reason why you find that simple solution unacceptable. Gary Stein > Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications > to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Xref: usenetserver.com misc.health.aids:174291 > X-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:36:01 EST (be02) > Just because you don't know how to read a header Frod don't assume that > other readers are as technically challenged as you are. I was waiting to see which one of the pharmaceutical public relations consultants came arunnin' to the rescue... >If your so concerned about Prof Bol's statement his email address has been >posted numerous times in this thread so why don't you just drop him a note >and ask him if he wrote what Chris says he did. Not good enough, Mr. Stein. >> Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications >> to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what >> it appears to be: a FORGERY. Chris Noble has the responsibility for posting ALL correspondence, complete with headers. Time's up - the Chris Noble forgeries are self-evident! susie >> Just because you don't know how to read a header Frod don't assume that >> other readers are as technically challenged as you are. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Time's up - the Chris Noble forgeries are self-evident! For you it is, Chris complied with your request and you blather about the difference in time hacks between his email and Claster. Have you bothered to check Claster's headers to find the geographic location of his IP address, I thought not....... Gary Stein >>> Just because you don't know how to read a header Frod don't assume that >>> other readers are as technically challenged as you are. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > For you it is, Chris complied with your request Not exactly. > Have you bothered to check Claster's headers to find the geographic location of his IP address, I > thought not....... Gee, for someone who hasn't spent a single minute in a medical library to research a disease they have purported to have been life-threatening for nearly ten years, it is interesting to see how much time you spend looking at everybody's usenet headers. You REEK of it, Gary Stein. susie > Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications > to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > susie >From: <bol_j@chem.leidenuniv.nl> >To: "'Chris Noble'" <chrisjnoble@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >John F. Bol This is the first and last time I will respond to an anonymous troll. Before you accuse other people of dishonesty take a good look at yourself. Chris Noble >> Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications >> to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>Subject: RE: Wilhelm Godschalk >>Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:14:44 +0100 Most interestingly, while iconoclaster posts from the Netherlands, his time zone is +0500, not +0100. Oops. susie >>> Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications >>> to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Most interestingly, while iconoclaster posts from the Netherlands, his > time zone is +0500, not +0100. Correction: Iconoclaster's Netherland time zone is -0500, while Dr. Bol's Netherland time zone is +0100. > Oops. > > susie >Until "Chris Noble" provides ALL the headers and the FULL communications >to and from Prof Bol, we MUST consider his post to be what >it appears to be: a FORGERY. LOL. Idiot. >>Try J.Bol@chem.leidenuniv.nl >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So far, no reply here either. Sent a note to > hooykaas@biology.leidenuniv.nl as well. Watch out - when George Mary Carter gets involved in these things a forgery is not far away! susie snip >Watch out - when George Mary Carter gets involved >in these things a forgery is not far away! Excuse me? I have never forged any emails. I have never used any emails in which I did not identify myself. For example, the defunct gmc0@ix.netcom.com. That is a baldfaced lie, Frodlet, dear. George M. Carter > snip >>Watch out - when George Mary Carter gets involved [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That is a baldfaced lie A baldfaced lie indeed! susie >"Do you want me to email people at Leiden U and ask them about your planned experiments on HIV?" Oh yes, by all means! (calling your bluff now) > >"Go ahead Claster. Order some HIV. What lab are you going to your analysis > in? Your kitchen? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Get real, Mr. Noble. Do you really think I would have to use my kitchen? > No, I'd simply use a virus lab at my Alma mater, the Univ. of Leiden. The Virus Biology lab at the Univ. of Leiden does research on lentiviral gene-transfer vectors based on HIV-1. Seeing as you characterise them as being part of the Moronic Majority I doubt they would be willing to let you use any of their equipment. http://members.lycos.nl/molvir/ http://members.lycos.nl/molvir/services.htm I'll repeat myself. You have made the claim that you have the facilities to identify and characterise retroviruses. Provide some evidence for your claim. Chris Noble >"The Virus Biology lab at the Univ. of Leiden does research on lentiviral gene-transfer vectors based on HIV-1. Seeing as you characterise them as being part of the Moronic Majority I doubt they would be willing to let you use any of their equipment." They probably wouldn't, but who needs them? I would probably be pissing them off every day. I used to do that with the group that preceded them, and that used to work on protein biosynthesis. Nevertheless I always got along with them very cordially at the personal level (Leendert Bosch was the leader of that group at the time. He's retired now. But are you sure you have the right idea what kind of equipment is necessary for virus work? I'm thinking of centrifuges (both preparatory and analytical), electrophoresis equipment, UV spectrophotometers, plus some smaller equipment. Those things belong to the Department, not to the individual researchers. So all I would need is permission from the chairman of the department. I also hope that this lentivirusbabble group is the only one at Leiden that has the necessary equipment. There are other sections (e.g. plant virology) that has the same stuff. Getting the use of the facilities is not any kind of problem. Whether I'm really looking forward to coming out of retirement to look at samples that I'm certain won't contain a single retroviral particle is quite another matter. > >"The Virus Biology lab at the Univ. of Leiden does research on lentiviral > gene-transfer vectors based on HIV-1. Seeing as you characterise them as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > individual researchers. So all I would need is permission from the > chairman of the department. You mean you don't have permission yet? But you have already told us you are in a position to do this work. > I also hope that this lentivirusbabble group is the only one at Leiden > that has the necessary equipment. There are other sections (e.g. plant > virology) that has the same stuff. And the people in charge of these sections would be happy for you to bring HIV into their labs? > Getting the use of the facilities is not any kind of problem. No problem at all? Sure? >Whether I'm really looking forward to coming out of retirement to look at samples > that I'm certain won't contain a single retroviral particle is quite > another matter. So lets get this straight. a) You claim that HIV has not been "isolated". b) You claim that AIDS reagents that can be ordered online do not contain any HIV. c) You claim that you have access to facilities to isolate and characterise retroviruses. Now you say that there is no point wasting your time by actually doing what you said you could do. Bullshit. Chris Noble >"You mean you don't have permission yet? But you have already told us you are in a position to do this work." I don't have permission yet, because I haven't asked. And yes, I would be in a position to do this work. You have to realize that the Dutch are less competitive among themselves than Americans are. They are not constantly trying to screw the other guy who works at the same lab. The general mood is more cordial (I know; I've worked on both sides of the Atlantic). So the idea of letting an older colleague use a few pieces of equipment and a few square feet of bench space is not so outlandish. >"And the people in charge of these sections would be happy for you to bring HIV into their labs?" They're not so squeamish. I used to work there with very toxic mercury compounds. There were also people working with smallpox virus (for the Dutch Dept. of Defense). But I wouldn't be knocking at the door of the lentivirus-people. I would take my business to the plant virus lab, where I'm better known and loved. So lets get this straight. a) I claim that HIV has not been "isolated". b) I claim that AIDS reagents that can be ordered online do not contain any HIV. c) I claim that I have access to facilities to isolate and characterise any kind of virus. But there is no point wasting my time by actually doing what I say I could do. And one more point, Mr. Noble: With all this bullshit of yours about lab space, you managed very well to get everybody's attention diverted from what was the original topic of this thread: THE TOTALLY RIDICULOUS IDEA THAT CUTTING OFF PART OF YOUR PEEPEE COULD PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST SOME SHADY RETROVIRUS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH CANNOT EVEN BE DEMONSTRATED. > >"You mean you don't have permission yet? But you have already told us you > are in a position to do this work." > > I don't have permission yet, because I haven't asked. But you are claiming that you can do this work. > And yes, I would be in a position to do this work. And I am supposed to take your word for that? And your word is worth ...? > You have to realize that the Dutch are > less competitive among themselves than Americans are. They are not [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lentivirus-people. I would take my business to |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message