"cloned HIV" ?

I don't see any problem with this for the "challenge."  Small amounts
of foreign proteins, or proteins that are coming into contact with
blood that should not (for example, what produces "anti-nuclear
antibodies") will not cause "AIDS."  However, massive amounts of
foreign proteins can cause the Th1 to Th2 shift found in many
"HIV/AIDS" patients.  Thus, I would propose a suppository made of
coconut oil and the "cloned HIV."  That should ensure "infection."
Now, if you are not familiar with my version of the challenge, you pay
me the current cost of the full "HIV cocktail" drugs, and that money
will be put in escrow.  If I am dead within 15 years of one of the
"AIDS indicator diseases" that is currently on the CDC's list, you get
all the money back, plus the interest, plus all my assets, but if I'm
still alive I get to keep it.

Is it a go?

As the Perth Group points out:

In the very first electron micrograph (published in May 1983),
Barré-Sinoussi, Montagnier et al not only immediately identified some
particles as retrovirus particles but they stated that: "Electron
microscopy of the infected umbilical cord lymphocytes showed
characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C-type) budding
at the plasma membrane...This virus is a typical type-C RNA tumor
virus". In 1984 Montagnier, Barre-Sinoussi et al reported that their
virus was "morphologically similar to D particles such as those found
in Mason-Pfizer virus or the virus recently isolated from simian AIDS."
(By 1984 researchers from the primate research centres in the United
States claimed the existence of AIDS in monkeys and that the cause of
AIDS was a type-D retrovirus similar to the Mason-Pfizer virus, a
typical type-D retrovirus and suggested that the monkey AIDS and these
retroviruses could be helpful in the study of human AIDS and "HIV"). In
the same year, in yet another publication, Montagnier et al claimed
that the "HIV" particles had "morphology similar to that of equine
infectious anaemia virus (EIAV), and D type particles". The EIAV and
the visna virus are neither type C nor type D retroviruses but
lentiviruses, that is, viruses which have different morphology and said
to induce diseases long after infection. (By the time this paper was
published it was realised that patients who had a positive "HIV"
antibody test did not develop AIDS immediately, that is, there was a
delay between the positive test and the appearance of AIDS). It is most
astonishing that the one and the same virus is able to change genus
from a typical type-C to a typical type-D particle and then to a
completely different subfamily, namely a typical lentivirus, apparently
at will and according to non-morphological criteria. These taxonomical
differences imply that if HIV was a newly discovered mammal, it could
have been either human, or a gorilla or an orang-utan.

All this aside, you have not answered my question. Even if Montagnier
had electron micrographs typical of retroviruses, they were all from
the culture. As Montagnier acknowledged, no retroviruses were seen at
the 1.16g/ml band. What I am interested in is how can anybody take some
proteins and RNA from the 1.16g/ml band where there are no proof of any
retrovirus-like particles and call them "HIV proteins" and "HIV RNA"?

Source: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vtcorweiss.htm

"Modern medicine," and to a large degree "biology" as well, is quite an
amazing disaster, demonstrating many human failings, such as "goup
think."  Some good work was done 100 or so years ago, then in the
middle of the twentieth century, the "bug hunters" and the
"epidemiologists" began to ignore the undeniable evidence that the
"bugs" only cause problems under certain conditions, which are usually
present in "un-natural,""civilized" societies (or those that have been
exploited by "civilized" peoples, then left "high and dry" at some
point, like many places in Africa).

If you are an "AIDS patient," Gary, I have no doubt I could "cure" you,
unless your body has already broken down so that you look like the guy
in the film Silverlake Life (Tom Joslin?) towards the end of his life.
If I had not seen such a recovery for myelf, I too would have trouble
believing it.  But you would need to trust the scientific method,
rather than the current social myths, and most people are just not
intellectually and/or emotionally capable of doing this.  You would
have to get back to basics: known human physiology, and work from
there, not trusting what someone who has power says just because he/she
is an "expert."  The "HIV/AIDS" claim does not rise to the level of
B-movie science fiction, but for some reason, it is often the case that
the bigger the lie, the more difficult it is for people to see it for
what it is, perhaps because we can't tolerate the notion that our
"leaders" and "experts" are incompetent, self-interested, etc., though
in light of recent poltical events, one would think that more people
would now "wake up and smell the coffee" about "HIV/AIDS."  Perhaps
that is in fact happening, just not in a dramatic way.

In any case, I'm more than willing to be exposed to a little cellular
debris called "HIV," and I would not allow "doctors" to "help" me,
unless I understood and approved of what they were doing.  I would not
take "anti-virals," "anti-biotics," or "vaccines" under any conditions,
nor would I subject myself to "chemo-therapy."  My cholesterol level is
"high," I eat plenty of "saturated fat," salt, chocolate, and sugar,
and I avoid more than the tiniest trace amounts of "essential fatty
acids,"  According to the "experts," if infected with "HIV," I should
not last long at all, so someone like yourself should be more than
willing to take me up on my offer.  You will actually make more than a
small sum of money if you are correct, as well as feel vindicated in
the notion that you are doomed by "HIV."