Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / June 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Authentic Hiv Virions Hand picked and selected.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Hayek - 19 Jun 2006 16:35 GMT
http://theperthgroup.com/REJECTED/StructureLetterPG.pdf

Authentic Hiv Virions Hand picked and selected.

Quote
In a BBC interview
(http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4642
940.stm
),
Stephen Fuller, one of the authors of an article
titled “The Mechanism of HIV-
1 Core Assembly: Insights from Three-Dimensional
Reconstructions of Authentic Virions” (Briggs et al.,
2006) stated that the HIV particles “varied in
diameter by a factor of three

[...]

The question must be asked: “On the basis of their
diameter, what percentage of the particles reported by
Briggs et al as being HIV particles are
in fact retroviral particles?
In their concentrate, Briggs et al must have had
numerous particles. Of those they examined 75
particles. No mention is made how these particles were
chosen. Lentiviruses have only one cone-shaped core.
Of the 75 particles observed in the Briggs et al
article, “63 contained a single core” and of these
63, 40 “contained a core with conical morphology”. The
question must be asked: “What is the origin and what
were the other 35 particles?”

[...]

The questions are:
(a) How do Briggs et al know that the images they
produced are those of
retrovirus particles and not retrovirus-like particles?
(b) How do Briggs et al know that the images they
produced are "Authentic
Virions" of a unique retrovirus, “HIV”, and not of the
other retroviruses in
the “soup”?

UNQUOTE

Emphasis on "No mention is made how these particles
were chosen."

Good science ! That one is nasty !
No, that one with the crooked buds, looks even nastier !!!

ROTFL.

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

GMCarter - 20 Jun 2006 00:06 GMT
>http://theperthgroup.com/REJECTED/StructureLetterPG.pdf
>
>Authentic Hiv Virions Hand picked and selected.

Even Duesberg recognizes these people haven't the brains god gave an
anencephalic rabbit. Indeed--even less than W.
GMCarter - 20 Jun 2006 01:32 GMT
We may actually agree that Duesberg is an idiot, interestingly
enough--but for diametrically opposed reasons.

You because you think he is too stupid, as a retrovirologist, to
understand that HIV exists. See:
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/continu1.html

By contrast, I think he is an idiot for claiming that HIV doesn't
cause AIDS.

Sadly, the pathetic polemic still dissuades a more useful conversation
about HOW HIV causes AIDS.

        George M. Carter
monty1945@lycos.com - 20 Jun 2006 09:49 GMT
They would have had more success picking berries - at least that would
not be fictional.
Hayek - 20 Jun 2006 15:20 GMT
> We may actually agree that Duesberg is an idiot,
> interestingly enough--but for diametrically opposed
> reasons.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

I understand why Duesberg entertains the existence of
an harmless passenger virus.

That way, he can explain hiv+ results in and from
blood supply to haemophiliacs and other blood recipients.

But, as Eleni Papadopulos points out, factor for
Haemophiliacs is dry frozen and hiv is not supposed to
survive this.

And there is another possibility, my own idea : it
might just be enough that some proteins trigger an
immune reaction in the recipient, causing him to
seroconvert, like a
vaccine would do. So not a whole virus is transmitted,
just some part that causes seroconversion. It is not
far fetched, because that is the way vaccines work.

Heating the blood, as they do now, causes these loose
proteins to dissolve, so they do not trigger an hiv
test, nor an immune reaction. And loose proteins could
survive the dry freezing of factor.

> You because you think he is too stupid, as a
> retrovirologist, to understand that HIV exists.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Sadly, the pathetic polemic still dissuades a more
> useful conversation about HOW HIV causes AIDS.

Do you admit there is a problem in that area ?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

GMCarter - 20 Jun 2006 22:35 GMT
>> We may actually agree that Duesberg is an idiot,
>> interestingly enough--but for diametrically opposed
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I understand why Duesberg entertains the existence of
>an harmless passenger virus.

Perhaps because he is a retrovirologist and understands, at least this
much, that it has been properly isolated. As it has.

Embracing and acting upon a thought that is demonstrably wrong is the
sign of an idiot.

In the case of rejecting the existence of HIV or that it causes AIDS
is not only idiocy, it is a fatal mistake for those who are HIV
infected. Just ask David Pasquarelli.

Except...he died of AIDS. Like far too many other people. And I'm
pretty damn sure he didn't want to die.

        George M. Carter
Hayek - 21 Jun 2006 04:09 GMT
>>> We may actually agree that Duesberg is an
>>> idiot, interestingly enough--but for
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> understands, at least this much, that it has been
> properly isolated. As it has.

It has not. Duesberg finds it a convenient
explanation. He has never come up with any proof of
isolation. His evidence is circumstantial. Just like
his behavioral approach. Only circumstantial evidence.

I find your tactic despiccable. Duesberg is no proof
for hiv existence. If that is all you got, after 20
years you got no proof.

> Embracing and acting upon a thought that is
> demonstrably wrong is the sign of an idiot.

Cure yourself, especially.

> In the case of rejecting the existence of HIV or
> that it causes AIDS is not only idiocy, it is a
> fatal mistake for those who are HIV infected. Just
>  ask David Pasquarelli.

He is dead.
We dissidents, and I am proud to be one, have never
denied the existence of aids. Just that it has other
causes than "hiv".  An aids dead is no proof for the
existence of a virus. Only medieval minded people
would conclude that.

Did David Pasquarelli have a typical wild gay
lifestyle ? Alcohol, poppers, drugs ? Did his doctors
know how to treat this adequately, without resorting
to " hiv -theory" ? When he finally came down with the
typical immune dysfynction, (also typical for CFIDS),
did David give in to ARV's and Bactrim ?

I have seen a friend die in a few month's : he hurt
his back, had to take heavy pain killers,  almost did
not eat, drank three liters of wine a day. It was an
intelligent man, an engineer, but for some reason,  he
never was intrested in food and its relation to
health. I now realise that his girlfriend did not
correct this behaviour.

On gays and drugs
http://www.royy.com/paper.pdf
http://www.fsw.ucalgary.ca/ramsay/gay-lesbian-bisexual/8a-drugs-alcohol-gay.htm

Look at this quote :
1999 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey: "Sexual
minority youth (those who identified themselves as
gay/lesbian/or bisexual and/or who had any same-sex
sexual contact) had higher rates of drug use than
their peers, including higher lifetime rates of using
marijuana (70% vs. 49%), cocaine (29% vs. 9%),
methamphetamines (30% vs. 7%), and injected drugs (18%
vs. 2%).
Unquote.

> Except...he died of AIDS. Like far too many other
> people. And I'm pretty damn sure he didn't want to
>  die.

After all those discussions with hiv-dissidents, you
still have not figured out that we do not deny aids,
we deny the viral causes of it.

If that is not a final proof that you are the idiot in
this discussion, then there is no proof for anything
in this universe.

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

GMCarter - 21 Jun 2006 11:39 GMT
>It has not. Duesberg finds it a convenient
>explanation. He has never come up with any proof of
>isolation.

Bullshit. Utter, complete, wailing nonsense.
Chris Noble - 21 Jun 2006 09:30 GMT
<snip>

> Heating the blood, as they do now, causes these loose
> proteins to dissolve, so they do not trigger an hiv
> test, nor an immune reaction. And loose proteins could
> survive the dry freezing of factor.

<snip>

What are loose proteins?
Why would heat make them dissolve?
Why would dissolved proteins not trigger an HIV test (presumably an
antigen test).
Why would dissolved proteins not cause an immune reaction?

Chris Noble
Hayek - 21 Jun 2006 15:58 GMT
> Hayek wrote: <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> <snip>

I understand your tactics, you pretend to not
understand anything I say, in order to make me answer,
and then catch on some minor mistake I make, to
destroy my whole argument. I will answer your
provocations, just for other readers of these posts,
if there are any.

> What are loose proteins?

On the left side of this slide, you see the proteins
of the Western Blot test.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/nvp/slides/index.php?slide=18

"
And to continue this theme, from the very beginning
and at present, Montagnier regards p41 not as an HIV
protein but the ubiquitous cellular protein, actin.

In 1989 Pinter and colleagues proved that the p120 and
p160 proteins in the HIV Western blot are not distinct
HIV proteins but oligomers of p41. In another paper
researchers expressed concern about mistaken diagnoses
based on the mistaken belief that p120 and p160 are
individual HIV proteins.
"
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/nvp/

What is actin ?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cellular+protein+actin.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

> Why would heat make them dissolve?

Since the blood products no longer react with the
Western Blot test, after heat treatment, they are no
longer there.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/nvp/slides/index.php?slide=18

> Why would dissolved proteins not trigger an HIV
> test (presumably an antigen test).

Why can you live in a house and not in pile of bricks ?

> Why would dissolved proteins not cause an immune
> reaction?

Why do people recognize a house as a house and a pile
of bricks as a pile of bricks ?

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

DavidT - 21 Jun 2006 18:13 GMT
> I will answer your
> provocations, just for other readers of these posts,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Answer (H): Why do people recognize a house as a house and a pile
> of bricks as a pile of bricks ?

Imagine the drivel produced when Hayek decdes NOT to answer someone's
questions.
Hayek - 21 Jun 2006 22:05 GMT
>> I will answer your provocations, just for other
>> readers of these posts, if there are any.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Imagine the drivel produced when Hayek decdes NOT
> to answer someone's questions.

Are you really that stupid ?

Now you actually give away that you do not understand
the first thing about molecular biology.

The surface of a complex molecule is composed of
negative and positive fields, in a complex
orientation. This allows another complex molecule,
which has opposite electric fields to "fit" and
connect, like a key.

I you break down this complex molecule in its
components, it can no longer connect to another
complex molecule, with the opposite key.

I made the analogy with the houses, because you can
recognize the difference between two houses, but not
between two piles of brick.

The immune system is build to recognize the surface of
 intruders, and builds antibodies to attack
(chemically bind to) them. If there is no complex
surface, the immune system does nothing. You can't
make a key to a lock that does not exist.

ARV makers try to do this, but unluckily their key
fits to some important vital processes that keeps the
body healthy.

You should start Chemistry 101.

Uwe Hayek.

Signature

L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert à rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.

RJ - 22 Jun 2006 02:50 GMT
> Now you actually give away that you do not understand
> the first thing about molecular biology.

This is a rather unwise thing to say when you're about to reveal your
own ignorance of immunology.

> The immune system is build to recognize the surface of
>   intruders, and builds antibodies to attack
> (chemically bind to) them. If there is no complex
> surface, the immune system does nothing. You can't
> make a key to a lock that does not exist.

It is actually difficult to figure out what you're even trying to say
here. Antigen presenting cells break down foreign proteins into
fragments called epitopes, which are then processed and presented via
the MHC pathway. In the case of antibodies:

"For example, by recognizing an epitope on a viral protein coat, a B
cell can internalize a complete virus particle. After internalization,
the virus particle is degraded and peptides from internal viral
proteins as well as coat proteins can be displayed by MHC class II
molecules on the B-cell surface. Helper T cells that have been primed
earlier in an infection by macrophages or dendritic cells presenting
these internal peptides can then activate the B cell to make antibodies
that recognize the coat protein."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.section.1183

CD4 (helper) T cells respond to epitopes around 11-20 mers in length
via the CD4 T cell receptor, which interacts with the MHC class II
molecule/epitope complex on the antigen presenting cell. In the case of
CD8 T cells, viral epitopes are presented via the MHC class I pathway,
these epitopes are typically shorter (~9 mers in length). So I have no
idea what you mean by "If there is no complex surface, the immune
system does nothing." Perhaps you can explain?

In the case of HIV infection, CD4 and CD8 T cell responses to multiple
epitopes from all nine viral proteins can be detected; they arise
during acute infection and persist (typically accumulate, in fact) over
the course of the disease. One of the ways you can tell HIV is
replicating throughout the course of infection is that new CD4 T cell,
CD8 T cell and antibody responses arise to the mutant epitopes that the
virus generates.

Richard Jefferys
Chris Noble - 23 Jun 2006 08:37 GMT
> >> I will answer your provocations, just for other
> >> readers of these posts, if there are any.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Now you actually give away that you do not understand
> the first thing about molecular biology.

Of course the rest of the world doesn't understand molecular biology,
immunology, quantum physics and relativity.

Have you managed to publish any papers on why Relativity is wrong yet?

Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 23 Jun 2006 08:30 GMT
> > Hayek wrote: <snip>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> and at present, Montagnier regards p41 not as an HIV
> protein but the ubiquitous cellular protein, actin.

Regurgitating lies by the Perth Group is not an answer.

Montagnier does not and has not believed that HIV gp41 is actin.
http://tinyurl.com/pu2m2

> In 1989 Pinter and colleagues proved that the p120 and
> p160 proteins in the HIV Western blot are not distinct
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> What is actin ?

A completely different protein that has approximately the same
molecular weight as HIV gp41.

So what is your definition of a loose protein.

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cellular+protein+actin.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> longer there.
> http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/perthgroup/nvp/slides/index.php?slide=18

?????????????

The Western Blot tests for antibodies not antigens.

Why would heat make "loose" proteins dissolve?

> > Why would dissolved proteins not trigger an HIV
> > test (presumably an antigen test).
>
> Why can you live in a house and not in pile of bricks ?

How do you imagine that the proteins bind to the antibodies if it isn't
happening in solution?

> > Why would dissolved proteins not cause an immune
> > reaction?
>
> Why do people recognize a house as a house and a pile
> of bricks as a pile of bricks ?

How do imagine antibodies working if not in solution?

Chris Noble
Chris Noble - 21 Jun 2006 09:31 GMT
<snip>

> Heating the blood, as they do now, causes these loose
> proteins to dissolve, so they do not trigger an hiv
> test, nor an immune reaction. And loose proteins could
> survive the dry freezing of factor.

<snip>

What are loose proteins?
Why would heat make them dissolve?
Why would dissolved proteins not trigger an HIV test (presumably an
antigen test).
Why would dissolved proteins not cause an immune reaction?

Chris Noble

Rate this thread:






 
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.