Posted by Henry Bauer <http:///> on 2008/01/17
It seems astonishing that hordes of virologists, immunologists, and other
biological scientists should be wrong about HIV/AIDS. It is even more
astonishing that HIV/AIDS researchers do experiments without caring whether
the substances they are working with are pure.
Etienne de Harven, pioneer in the electron microscopy of viruses and
Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of Toronto, discussed in his
address to the European Parliament [HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS
PATIENTS, 15 January 2008] the failure of HIV/AIDS researchers to purify
what they call “viral isolates of HIV”. Electron microscopy revealed that
these “viral isolates” are motley mixtures of bits and pieces of various
shapes and sizes; see “Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of
gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations”
(Gluschankof et al., Virology 230  125–33); “Microvesicles are a
source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1
preparations” (Bess et al., Virology 230  134–44).
Phyllis Pease, emeritus in medical microbiology from the University of
Birmingham, discusses in some detail the fact that “supposedly pure HIV as
prepared by standard techniques for the isolation of retroviruses employed
since 1970 [has been] without the benefit of essential electron microscopy
controls” (p. 128, “AIDS, Cancer and
ISBN 0-9550567-0-5; see comprehensive review by Neville Hodgkinson at
“Viral isolates” of “HIV” are whatever happens to be in the band of density
1.16, when a source thought to contain “HIV” is ultracentrifuged in a sugar
gradient. Below is a tracing of electron micrographs published by Bess et
al.; for easier identification, some of the microvesicles are colored
green, some of the supposed virions are in blue, and some of the motley
debris is in red. The lower micrograph is of a more highly purified
preparation than the upper (see Pease, p. 129), yet still shows the
presence of a variety of contaminants.
Not only are these mixtures of all sorts of things: when Pease measured the
purported retrovirus particles (see p. 131 in her book), she found that
their sizes spanned a wide range (70-225 nanometers). Purification had
increased the proportion of virus-like particles, but clearly they are not
all the same, as virions of a given species would be.
*The astonishing, well-nigh incredible yet inescapable conclusion is this:
The “HIV” that researchers work with is a motley mixture of various kinds
of intracellular particles (vesicles) and bits of cellular debris, in which
there may or may not be present some particles of a putative human
immunodeficiency retrovirus, and possibly other viruses as well*.
This remarkable circumstance explains immediately several peculiar
characteristics supposedly unique to HIV and that have made it so
intractable a thing to deal with:
— No two HIV isolates are exactly the same. “Within a single HIV-1 infected
human host, HIV-1 population represents a complex mixture, or swarm, of
mutant virus variants, in which all viruses are genetically related yet
virtually every virus is unique” (Lukashov et al., “The genetic diversity
of HIV-1 and its implications for vaccine development” in AIDS Vaccine
Research, ed. Wong-Staal & Gallo, chapter 3, at p. 93).
*Of course! Every time researchers make a preparation of “HIV”, they are
working with a different and possibly unique mixture*.
— HIV is said to mutate at a rate far exceeding anything observed with
other biological entities.
*Not at all. Every time researchers make a preparation of “HIV”, they are
working with a different and possibly unique mixture*.
— Every attempt at preparing a vaccine against HIV has failed totally.
*Naturally. One can’t vaccinate against motley mixtures of variable
How do HIV researchers respond to the charge that their “viral isolates”
are not pure HIV?
Whenever possible—which is most of the time—they simply ignore it, even
since the cited articles, published in 1997. However, ignoring is not
feasible if one is on the witness stand in a court of law, as Robert Gallo
was (via telecommunication) at the Parenzee trial in South Australia. Here
are extracts from the transcript of his testimony, which is available in
full at http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/:
“*Once we could mass-produce this virus, that’s purification. If you have a
tonne of something and you contaminate it by a drop of water, didn’t you
purify it?* It’s the ratio of cell protein to viral protein. Sucrose
gradient gives you a little bit of help but you could do that five times
and it’s not going to purify as much as we did by mass-producing it. To use
the extreme hyperbole, if you have a tonne of some something and a drop of
water, you’ve purified it. That’s what we did. (Emphasis added; p. 1278,
. . .
We succeeded in putting six of the 48 isolates into permanent culture,
meaning in a cell line, in a leukaemic cell line that, itself, doesn’t have
virus particles, and *the virus comes out in great quantity and forever,
thus making purification already accomplished*. But, of course, we also use
banded virus by sucrose gradient which they make a case out of we never
did. You don’t publish that. Of course we did, but it isn’t needed and
be needed if you could mass-purify it*. But, for other purposes, we did it.
(Emphases added; p. 1278, lines 25–35).”
This is no inadvertent mis-statement, Gallo repeats it (Emphases added; pp.
1281, lines 21–37):
“people use great quantities of *mass-produced virus which by itself is
purified virus*. You are not being told that either because they don’t
understand it or they don’t know; I don’t know. It has gone through a far
greater purification than any banding can produce. The blood test that
became available to people who knew how to do it came from mass-produced
virus, originally from in Frederick, Maryland. The genes now have been
cloned. We started in publications in 1984 throughout 1985 which showed
that each of the proteins you pick up with Western blot is coded by one of
the genes of HIV or another. Therefore we know those proteins come from HIV
and, when a patient’s serum reacts with them, we know that patient,
untreated, will almost always get AIDS. *You can’t get science any better
or anything more definitive*.”
Most scientists, I dare say most thinking people, would be astonished at
Gallo’s assertion that if you have a large enough amount of something then
it doesn’t matter what else is present. Perhaps he was aware of that when
he made the disingenuous comment about “a drop of water” not being a
contaminant, when the actual contaminants are an unholy mélange of things.
Yet even a drop of water can ruin an experiment if that drop contains the
tiniest bit of the wrong sort of substance.
Solid-state physicists had observed in the mid-1930s the phenomenon that
led—but only 3 decades later—to the transistor revolution in electronics.
During those 3 decades, the phenomenon could not be reproduced—because of
the unknown and therefore uncontrollable presence of varying traces of
impurities in amounts too small to be detected by then-available methods.
Much of my own work in electrochemistry had to do with a method known as
polarography. Its discovery stemmed from a strange phenomenon whose very
existence depended on the presence of impurities in amounts too small to be
detected by any then-available means, something realized only some 5
decades (Bauer, “Streaming maxima in polarography”, Electroanalytical
Chemistry, 8  169-279). The sensitivity to impurities was so great in
large part because polarography depends on reactions at surfaces. The
tiniest amounts of impurities in a solution may accumulate at surfaces to
produce tangible effects. Many processes that depend on catalysis are
surface reactions. The ubiquitous enzyme reactions in biological systems
are essentially catalytic surface phenomena: the reacting substance has to
fit precisely onto the surface of the enzyme. Contaminants in biological
systems can ruin experiments and vitiate entirely any claimed results.
It beggars belief that a scientist would ignore the relevance of possible
impurities in biological research or attempt to down-play the possible
significance of impurities.
Posted in HIV absurdities<https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/category/hiv-absurdities/>,
HIV tests <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/category/hiv-tests/> |
microscopy of HIV<https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/electron-microscopy-of-hiv/>,
Etienne de Harven <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/etienne-de-harven/>,
HIV electron micrographs<https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/hiv-electron-micrographs/>,
HIV isolation <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/hiv-isolation/>, HIV
pictures <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/hiv-pictures/>, Phyllis
pure HIV <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/pure-hiv/>, purifying
Robert Gallo <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/robert-gallo/>, viral
isolates <https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/tag/viral-isolates/> | 6
HIV HAS NEVER BEEN ISOLATED FROM AIDS
Posted by Henry Bauer <http:///> on 2008/01/15
Etienne de Harven, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Pathology, University of
Toronto; he has been a member of the Sloan Kettering Institute (New York)
and was on the AIDS Advisory Panel set up by President T. Mbeki in 2000. He
has special expertise in electron microscopy; already 4 decades ago he
published electron micrographs of the Friend leukemia virus.
On 8 December 2003, he addressed the European Parliament on “Problems with
isolating HIV”. That address has never previously been published in
English, and I’m delighted and honored that he was willing to have it
posted here. Professor de Harven’s contact information is:
“Le Mas Pitou”, 2879 Route de Grasse, 06530 Saint Cézaire, France;
e-mail [email protected]; Tel or Fax (33) 4 93 60 28 39
PROBLEMS WITH ISOLATING HIV
How can we best help Africa? How can we set priorities aimed at bringing
under control what is described as an AIDS epidemic? For twenty years, all
AIDS research has been based on the HIV hypothesis. Do we now have reasons
to question this hypothesis? Yes, because there is a major problem with
isolation and purification of HIV. The major problem being that, in spite
of innumerable claims to the contrary, this retrovirus has never been
isolated nor purified in a scientifically acceptable manner that would
satisfy the classic requirements of virology.
To demonstrate the problem’s magnitude it appears necessary to compare
current results on HIV with those obtained, previously, in experimental
pathology, on another retrovirus known to be significantly associated with
a particular leukaemia of laboratory mice, the Friend leukaemia. Both
retroviruses, i.e. the Friend leukaemia virus and the HIV hypothetically
related to AIDS, share extremely similar morphology under the electron
microscope, have identical diameters, and sediment at the same density in
sucrose gradients. A direct comparison between isolating and purifying
these two different retroviruses is, therefore, entirely appropriate.
Mice suffering from the Friend leukaemia have considerable numbers of
retroviral particles in their blood stream. This phenomenon, described as
“viraemia“ in the past (1), would be called “viral load“, in today ’s
terminology. From only a few ml of the blood plasma of leukaemic mice, the
viral particles could be readily separated by a simple technique of
ultrafiltration, then sedimented by high-speed centrifugation and finally
prepared for electron microscopy. The results are illustrated in the first
On this electron microscope image, a uniform population of virus particles
is clearly recognized. They all have the same diameter and morphology, and
one has to look very carefully to identify rare, non-viral structures,
attesting to the high degree of purification of these retroviral particles.
Such samples of purified retrovirus were successfully used to identify
viral proteins and to extract viral RNA. The method applied to achieve this
purification of a typical retrovirus is rapid, inexpensive and highly
Most surprisingly, nobody has ever succeeded in demonstrating HIV particles
in the blood of any AIDS patient by this simple method, even though
patients were selected for presenting a so-called high “viral load” as
determined by PCR methods. This embarrassing lack of electron microscope
evidence for substantiating the nature of the so-called viral load in AIDS
patients was first reported during an important AIDS conference that took
place in Pretoria, S.A., in May 2000 (2). None of the AIDS experts present
at that conference could demonstrate the presence of retroviral particles
in the blood of AIDS patients. Moreover, almost two years ago, a
substantial award ($100,000) was officially offered (3) to anybody who
would demonstrate HIV particles in the blood of allegedly high viral load
patients. Two years later, the award has still not been claimed. Obviously,
what was so readily and reproducibly demonstrated in leukaemic mice has
never been observed in any AIDS patient.
ALLEGED CLAIMS OF HIV ISOLATION BASED ON NON-SPECIFIC “MARKERS”.
Over the past 20 years, the medical literature has been inundated with
innumerable papers, attempting to dodge the lack of electron microscope
evidence for the presence of retroviral particles in samples directly
collected from AIDS patients. In all these papers, the missing retroviral
particles have been swiftly substituted with so-called HIV “markers”. These
“markers” were of physical, biochemical, or genetic nature.
As known for a very long time, classic retroviruses identified in chicken,
mice and cats, all share the same shape and density, and therefore sediment
at exactly the same level during high-speed centrifugation in sucrose
gradients. Actually, they all sediment at the density of 1.16 gm of sucrose
per ml (4). The alleged HIV being classified as a retrovirus, it was
logical to expect it to sediment at that same density.
However, as was also well known years before the emergence of AIDS, a large
variety of cellular fragments and debris also sediment at that density (5,
6). Collecting material sedimenting at that density does not, therefore,
demonstrate the isolation of retroviruses, unless a careful control by
electron microscopy rules out any contamination by cellular debris. The
importance of these essential controls was stressed during a conference
that took place in Paris, in 1973 (4). Most surprisingly, in the same
laboratory of the Pasteur Institute, then years later, in 1983, a paper was
published (7), in which these controls were missing. It appeared later
(20), however, that these controls were attempted but gave discouraging
results. Still, in the title of that paper, “isolation” of a new
retrovirus, the future HIV, was announced. Dramatically enough, this is the
paper that placed AIDS research on highly questionable tracks for the
following two decades.
In 1970, Temin (8 ) and Baltimore (9) discovered the activity of a so far
totally unexpected enzyme in allegedly purified samples of experimental
retroviruses. This enzyme was called “reverse transcriptase” because it
induces DNA synthesis from RNA templates. It was indeed a fundamental
discovery that revolutionized molecular biology. This enzyme activity was
first observed in RNA tumour viruses and was, therefore, initially thought
to represent a characteristic “marker” of these viruses which,
consequently, received a new name: “retroviruses”. Ever since, reverse
transcriptase activity has been used as a “marker” for HIV…
However, shortly after the publications by Temin and Baltimore, it was
discovered that reverse transcriptase activity was not restricted to
“retroviruses” but was in fact a most common phenomenon in biology (10,
11), as reviewed by Varmus in 1987 (12). Unfortunately, and yet again,
Temin and Baltimore omitted to verify the purity of the viral samples on
which their observations were made. Consequently, any contamination of
these samples by cell, bacterial, or mycoplasma debris could just as well
have explained the presence of the reverse transcriptase activity observed
by these authors. In 1983, the Pasteur group based their claim for the
isolation of a new retrovirus primarily on 1) the detection of reverse
transcriptase activity in 2) material sedimenting at the density of 1.16
gm/ml. These two criteria completely lose significance if the data are not
verified by electron microscopy to exclude possible interference by
non-viral contaminants known to be frequently present in allegedly
“purified” retroviruses (5, 6).
Several proteins, allegedly of viral origin, are frequently used as
“specific” HIV markers, p24 for example. Doubts concerning its specificity
have been expressed for a long time (15). The complete lack of agreement
between results obtained with p24 and measurements of “viral load” obtained
by PCR were recently stressed (13). Surprisingly, in Western blot tests,
40% of sera from dogs reacted positively with proteins obtained by genetic
recombination technology, such as gp120, gp47, p31 and p24 (14). This had
to be expected since Eleni Papadopoulos, Val Turner and the Perth Group had
initially, extensively demonstrated the total lack of specificity of all
the alleged HIV structural proteins in a paper, published 10 years ago in
Nature Biotechnology (15), a fundamental paper that was completely ignored.
To cite only key examples, gp41 probably corresponds to actin, and
gp120-160 are likely oligomers of gp41. Evidently, cell debris
contaminating very poorly purified retroviral samples may also readily
account for the presence of alleged retroviral markers, and frequently
reported “successes” in HIV “isolation” most likely result from faulty
reliance on non-specific “markers”.
*Genetic markers and measurements of “viral load”*.
This approach could seem more attractive for two reasons: 1) it applies
directly to a patient’s blood, therefore avoiding all the uncertainties of
complex cell cultures, and 2) it is supposed to be a quantitative method.
However, as already stressed, it has never been possible to visualize any
retroviral particle by electron microscopy in the blood of AIDS patients,
even though these patients are selected for having a so-called very high
“viral load” (2). Moreover, it appears very likely that PCR methods amplify
small RNA fragments, more frequently observed under conditions of stress
and of chronic illnesses (16), and which include retroviral segments
originating from human endogenous retrovirus [endogenous = originating
within the body, native to the human genome, not from external source].
This is not surprising since about 2% of the human genome has marked
homology with the retroviral genome (17). Consequently, “measuring” the
“viral load” by PCR methods is likely to have no relationship whatsoever
with real quantification of a hypothetical exogenous [having a cause
external to the body] HIV viremia. Kary Mullis himself, Nobel Prize
laureate for his discovery of the PCR method, categorically rejects the use
of “his” method for quantitative measurements of a hypothetical HIV viremia
*The abuse of… beautiful pictures*.
The “viral load” of newspapers and magazines, all over the world is
extremely high, meaning the number of pictures of HIV published almost
daily in the world’s press. These pictures are extremely attractive, and
are frequently rich in artificial colors. They clearly exemplify the danger
of misinforming the public with computer graphics. To publish such images
brings to the attention of the general public, and of the medical
profession as well, an apparently crystal-clear message: “Yes, HIV has been
isolated since one can portray it under the electron microscope”.
All these images are computerized rationalizations and embellishments of
actual electron microscope pictures similar to those illustrating, for
example, Barré-Sinoussi’s paper (7). But not one of these pictures
originated directly from one single AIDS patient! They ALL originated from
complex cell cultures prepared in various laboratories (19), cultures that
have been described as “real retroviral soups” (20). Indeed, everything was
done to make sure that retroviral particles (and the celebrated budding
forms) would appear in these cultures. Not done were the essential
verification experiments that could have clarified the endogenous origin of
these viruses. Even if these control experiments were done, their results
were apparently never published. We are still waiting for a newspaper that
would publish beautiful computer graphics of HIV and would have the honesty
to explain to their readers that all these still have to be confirmed with
samples originating directly from AIDS patients.
In AIDS research, most of the cell cultures used are mixed and
Mixed, because they contain, for example, lymphocytes from a patient plus
the H9 cells from Gallo’s lab, cells well known to be chronic carriers of
retroviruses (21). Or, as in the Pasteur Institute case (7), lymphocytes
from an AIDS suspected patient plus lymphocytes isolated from umbilical
cord blood that originated in the placenta and known since 1979 (22) to be
likely to carry human endogenous retrovirus.
These cultures are hyperstimulated with one or two growth factors such as
phytohemagglutinin (PHA), T cell lymphocyte growth factor (TCGF),
interleukin2, or corticosteroid hormones. All these factors are known to
activate the expression of endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), which are
defective viruses that may acquire envelopes and bud on the surface of
cells activated by these factors. Presumably, this is exactly what happened
when cord blood lymphocytes were activated with PHA and TCGF in the Pasteur
1983 experiments (7). Unfortunately, the control experiments needed to
verify this interpretation remain to be done.
In short, it seems that electron microscopy was not used when it was
essential to demonstrate the absence of contaminating cell debris in
allegedly purified virus preparations, and misinterpreted when stimulated
cord blood lymphocytes showed budding retroviruses.
Indeed, HIV has never been properly isolated, nor purified, and,
consequently, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has to be fundamentally reappraised
(23, 24, 25, 30, 32).
More precisely, without purification of HIV, HIV-specific antigens could
never have been rigorously identified (15). Still, so-called HIV antigens
are instrumental in all the serological tests allegedly identifying
specific HIV antibodies—ELISA, Western Blot, and more recent rapid tests
such as “ Capillus”, “Determine”, and “Vironostika”. Recombinant DNA
technology for “viral” antigens certainly yields purer products, but fails
to make up for the missing specificity. No surprise, therefore, that dozens
of different medical conditions, including tuberculosis, malaria, leprosy,
multiple blood transfusions, many vaccines, multiparity, etc. all give
false-positive “HIV” tests (26).
Retroviral particles have unquestionably been observed, not directly in
AIDS patients, but in mixed, hyper-stimulated cell cultures (7). They most
likely represent forced expression, in cell cultures, of human endogenous
retroviruses (17), whose hypothetical role in the etiology of AIDS has
never been proved.
The HIV particles, missing from the patients, have been conveniently
substituted by molecular “markers”, because the HIV=AIDS hypothesis had to
be saved at all cost (see the Durban Declaration, 27), even at the price of
scientific integrity (28 ).
If AIDS were indeed caused by a retrovirus, how can we explain that 20
years of considerable research efforts, based exclusively on that single
hypothesis, have failed to isolate the responsible exogenous retrovirus?
Twenty years to end up with no curative treatment, no vaccine, and no
verifiable epidemiological predictions.
Obviously, time is pressing us to ask courageously the essential question,
namely, is the HIV=AIDS hypothesis correct? Because it is entirely possible
to view AIDS differently, outside the field of infectious diseases, and
outside the field of retrovirology (29). And in this perspective, which is
replete with optimistic predictions, all the difficulties encountered in
attempted isolation and purification of the hypothetical HIV may find an
extremely rational explanation. Indeed, doubts concerning the very
existence of HIV are nothing new, and were expressed by several dissident
scientists several years ago (30, 31). I completely share these doubts. Let
us not forget the title of Peter Duesberg’s book (33) published in 1996:
“Inventing the AIDS Virus”.
*Consequently, priorities for medical assistance to sub-Saharan Africa
should, most urgently, be revised as follows*:
— Treat all endemic tropical diseases with their specific treatments.
— Stop all use of antiretroviral drugs until the isolation of HIV and its
pathogenicity are scientifically established.
— Stop using highly crossreacting serological tests, the HIV specificity of
which is far from demonstrated.
— Provide African people with clean drinking water, proper housing and
sanitation, efficient health-care infrastructures, and means to combat
*References* (the URLs below are no longer active)
(1) de Harven E. Viremia in Friend murine leukemia: the electron microscope
approach to the problem. Pathologie-Biologie 1965; 13: 125-134. See also de
Harven E., Pioneer deplores “ HIV”, Continuum 1997; 5 #2: 24.
(2) de Harven E. Summary statement. Interim Report of the AIDS Advisory
Panel, Pretoria, SA, May 2000. Published by the Government of South Africa,
4 April 2001.
(3) Russel A. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/Thursdayreport/prize.html
(4) Sinoussi F et al. Purification and partial differentiation of the
particles of murine sarcoma virus (MMSV) according to their sedimentation
rates in sucrose density gradients. Spectra, #4, 1973, pp 239-243.
(5) Bess JW et al. Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular
proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virology 1997; 203: 134-144.
(6) Gluschankof P et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of
gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations.
Virology 1997; 230: 125-133.
(7) Barré-Sinoussi F. et al. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from
a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science
1983; 220: 868-871.
(8 ) Temin HM, Mizutani S. RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of Rous
sarcoma virus. Nature 1970; 226: 1211-1213.
(9) Baltimore D. RNA-dependent DNA polymerase. Nature 1970; 226: 1209-1211.
(10) Ross J et al. Separation of murine cellular and murine leukemia virus
DNA polymerases. Nature New Biology 1971; 231: 163-167.
(11) Beljanski M. Synthèse in vitro de l’ADN sur une matrice d’ARN par une
transcriptase d’Esscherichia coli. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des
sciences 1972; 274: 2801-2804.
(12) Varmus H. Reverse transcription. Scientific American 1987; 257: 48-54.
(13) Franchi F. In search of HIV; http://www.cesil.com/0898/en frah08.htm
(14) Strandstrom HV et al. Studies with canine sera that contain antibodies
which recognize human immunodeficiency virus structural proteins. Cancer
Research 1990; 50: 5628s-5630s.
(15) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E et al. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV
infection? Bio/Technology 1993; 11: 696-707.
(16) Urnovitz HB et al. RNAs in the sera of Persian Gulf War veterans have
segments homologous to chromosome 22Q11.2. Clinical and diagnostic
laboratory immunology 1999; 6/3: 330-335. See also
(17) Löwer R et al. The viruses in all of us : characteristics and
biological significance of human endogenous retrovirus sequences.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 1996; 93: 5177-5184.
(18 ) Mullis K. “ Dancing naked in the Mine Field”. Pantheon, 1998.
(19) Gelderblom HR. HIV sequence data base : fine structure of HIV and SIV.
(20) Tahi D. Did Montagnier discover HIV ? “I repeat, we did not purify!”.
Continuum 1997; 5: 30-34.
(21) Dourmashkin RR et al. The presence of budding virus-like particles in
human lymphoid cells used for HIV cultivation. VIIth International
Conference on AIDS. Firenze 1992: 122.
(22) Panem S. C-type virus expression in the placenta. Current Topics in
Pathology 1979; 66: 175-189.
(23) Shenton J. “Positively False”. I.B. Tauris & Co, 1998.
(24) Hodgkinson N. “The Failure of Contemporary Science – How a Virus that
Never Was Deceived the World”. Fourth Estate, 1996.
(25) Russeil R. “Enquête sur le Sida – Les Vérités Muselées”. Editions
Vivez Soleil (Chêne-Bourg/Genève), 1996.
(26) Johnson C. Whose antibodies are they anyway ? Continuum Sept/Oct. 1996.
(27) Weiss R, Wain-Hobson S. The Durban declaration. Nature 2000; 406:
(28 ) Stewart GT et al. Not all accepted the Durban Declaration. Nature
2000; 407: 286.
(29) Duesberg P, Köhnlein C, Rasnick D. The chemical bases of the various
AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and
malnutrition. Journal of Bioscience 2003, 28 #4: 383-412. See French
translation at www.altheal.org
(30) Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. A brief history of retroviruses. Continuum
1997; 5: 25-29.
(31) Lanka S. HIV, reality or artefact? Continuum 1995; 3 #1: 4-9.
(32) Rasnick D. The AIDS Blunder. Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg, South
Africa), 24 January 2001.
(33) Duesberg P. “Inventing the AIDS Virus”. Regnery, 1996.