Moderators: Michel Uphoff, Jan van de Velde
Laat me raden wat Jeroen gaat zeggen: "Assasinator, dat kan niemand weten. misschien is het HIV misschien niet. Het is in ieder geval geen zorgvuldig geisoleerd virus en pas als we dat hebben gezien en hebben aangetoond dat Koch's postulaten op dat exacte virus van toepassing is gebleken, weten we waar we op dit soort foto's naar moeten zoeken."Jeroen, wat staat er dan op die foto? Niet slechts deeltjes, dat kan iedere leek zien.
Ik ben voor en switch naar het aantonen van onwaarschijnlijkheid van hiv isolatie.De enige vraag die we nog zouden kunnen bespreken met betrekking tot isolatie is: waarom kunnen retrovirussen in het algemeen gewoon op klassieke manier (ultra-centrifuge) worden gevonden en gezuiverd en ge-EM-fotografeerd maar HIV specifiek niet?
Dit klinkt met mijn boerenverstand gewoon erg onlogisch.waarom kunnen retrovirussen in het algemeen gewoon op klassieke manier (ultra-centrifuge) worden gevonden en gezuiverd en ge-EM-fotografeerd maar HIV retrovirussen niet?
dat snapt mijn boerenverstand ook niet.als slechts 1 op de 100 T-cellen ooit hiv-geinfecteerd wordt, hoe kan dit nu leiden tot een TOTALE afbraak van je immuunsysteem?
Hoe zie je dit Jeroen? Ik kan ook gewoon zeggen:' dat zijn volgens mij peroxysomen die de cel verlaten, en dat kan dus zeker niet hiv zijn!' Ik zou het ook leuk vinden als je niet met een link zou reageren, gewoon enkele puntjes van: een retrovirus ziet er essetieel zo uit op een foto, en een buddend deeltje heeft die specifieke kenmerken, en hier is duidelijk te zien dat het die kenmerken vertoont en die niet dus is het een buddend deeltje ofzo. Dan kunnen andere mensen die hier vakkennis over hebben ook zo reageren en blijft het voor iedereen volgbaar.Tot slot wil ik nog even kwijt dat alle foto's die hier tot nu toe geplaatst zijn, opnames zijn van "buddende" deeltjes en niet van geisoleerd virus.
1-Dat kan volgens mij wel iemand weten, misschien heeft er hier op dit forum daar niemand de genoeg kennis van, maar er zullen zeker wetenschappers zijn die dagelijks intensief bezig zijn met retro-virussen en dergelijke die wel kunnen zien of dit een retro-virus is.Laat me raden wat Jeroen gaat zeggen: "Assasinator, dat kan niemand weten. misschien is het HIV misschien niet. Het is in ieder geval geen zorgvuldig geisoleerd virus en pas als we dat hebben gezien en hebben aangetoond dat Koch's postulaten op dat exacte virus van toepassing is gebleken, weten we waar we op dit soort foto's naar moeten zoeken."
=>Simpel googlen levert:Dit staat er inderdaad, maar geen referentie erbij, dus ik kan niet controleren of dit inderdaad waar is. Bovendien staat er niet bij hoeveel mensen onderzocht zijn Dat ten eerste. Ten tweede, en dat is een belangrijker argument, heb ik al eerder uitgelegd dat een test vals-positief / vals-negatief kan zijn. Dus dit zegt helemaal niets
waarom kunnen retrovirussen in het algemeen gewoon op klassieke manier (ultra-centrifuge) worden gevonden en gezuiverd en ge-EM-fotografeerd maar HIV retrovirussen niet?
Dit klinkt met mijn boerenverstand gewoon erg onlogisch.
en ook:
als slechts 1 op de 100 T-cellen ooit hiv-geinfecteerd wordt, hoe kan dit nu leiden tot een TOTALE afbraak van je immuunsysteem?
dat snapt mijn boerenverstand ook niet.
Ach, zijn ze nu nog bezig?Hierin hebben de dissidenten problemen met hun denkdoosje. In deze vraag zit namenlijk een aanname die ze niet (kunnen) hard maken. Nl. dat er een klassieke manier m.b.v. ultra-centrifuge is, waarmee je alle retrovirussen (behalve HIV) kunt isoleren.De enige vraag die we nog zouden kunnen bespreken met betrekking tot isolatie is: waarom kunnen retrovirussen in het algemeen gewoon op klassieke manier (ultra-centrifuge) worden gevonden en gezuiverd en ge-EM-fotografeerd maar HIV specifiek niet?
Meer over centrifugale virus isolatie9.6.2.2 "HIV" Isolation (purification)
One of the physical characteristics of retroviruses is their density. In sucrose density gradients, they band at the density of 1.16gm/ml. So for this experiment:
1. Bands of sucrose of different densities are layered in a centrifuge tube, the lighter at the top and the heavier at the bottom.
2. Establish cell cultures by taking cells from patients who are said to be "HIV" infected (test cultures) and patients who are said not to be "HIV" infected (control cultures).
3. Take the supernatant, that is, the culture fluid, (specimen) and place it at the top of the centrifuge tube.
4. Spin the centrifuge tube for many hours at very high speed.
5. If the specimen contains retroviral particles, they will aggregate (band) at 1.16gm/ml.
6. Extract the 1.16gm/ml band and examine it with an electron microscope (EM).
7. Compare the EM pictures obtained from the test and control cultures. Particles with the morphology of retroviruses should be present only in the EMs from the test cultures. To claim that the 1.16gm/ml band is pure then the EM should show no other material but retroviral-like particles.
8. If there is no difference in the EMs of the test and control cultures no matter what is seen, then it is not possible to claim that the test cultures are infected with a retrovirus.
9. Extract the proteins from the 1.16 gm/ml band obtained from both test and control cultures and compare them. If no difference exists then there is no proof that the test cultures contain "HIV" regardless what the EMs show.
10. Extract the nucleic acids from the 1.16gm/ml band obtained from both test and control cultures and compare them. If no difference exists then there is no proof that the test cultures contain "HIV" regardless what the EMs show.
CJ: You mentioned the decades old method of isolating retroviruses. How many decades are we talking about?
EPE: From the 1940s until the late 1970s. You see retroviruses were among the first viruses discovered. Dr. Peyton Rous at the Rockefeller Center in New York originally encountered them when he was doing experiments on malignant muscle tumours in chickens.(8) Not that he could actually see them. That was back in 1911. It wasn't until the invention of the electron microscope and the high speed centrifuge that things began to be sorted out.
CJ: What was actually sorted out?
EPE: It was these that led to the method of identifying and purifying retroviral particles.
CJ: That's the same as isolating them?
EPE: Yes. To purify particles of any kind a scientist has to develop a method of separating out the particles he wishes to study from everything else.
CJ: How did electron microscopes and high speed centrifuges make purification of retroviruses possible?
EPE: The electron microscope enabled particles this small to be seen. The other part was played by the high speed centrifuge and was extremely important. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy and this was utilised to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
CJ: Sounds complicated.
EPE: The technology is complicated but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar. But it's made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus and if you’re right retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test-tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together, or to use virological jargon, that's where they band. That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope.
CJ: And do retroviral particles band at a characteristic point?
EPE: Yes. In the sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you've caught?
EPE: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you've caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: True. Did Montagnier and Gallo not do this?
EPE: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding but for some unknown reason they did not publish any EMs of the material at 1.16 gm/ml which they and everyone afterwards call "pure HIV". This is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EPE: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of a few particles which they claimed are a retrovirus and are HIV. But photographs don’t prove particles are a virus and the existence of HIV was not proven using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EPE: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EPE: They used some of the techniques but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
Hieronder wordt gesproken over wat er op de inmiddels verguisde plaatjes is te zien.Dr. Eleni Papadopulos is a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. This interview by Christine Johnson looks at this work and especially her group's views on the AIDS virus itself.
genoemde refs uit de studie:CJ: All right. Let's talk about the pictures of the density gradient published this year. What do we see there?
EPE: Two groups, one Franco/German (9) and one from the US National Cancer Institute (10), published pictures of density gradients. In the Franco/German study the pictures are from the 1.16 gm/ml band. It is impossible to tell from which density the pictures in the American study are taken but let's assume it's the correct 1.16 density for retroviral particles. The first thing to say is that the authors of these studies concede that their pictures reveal the vast majority of the material in the density gradient is cellular. The authors describe all this material as "non-viral", or as "mock" virus or "microvesicles".
CJ: What are microvesicles?
EPE: Encapsulated cell fragments.
CJ: Are there any viral particles in these pictures?
EPE: There are a few particles which the researchers claim are retroviral particles. In fact, they claim these are the HIV particles but give no evidence why.
CJ:Are there lots of these HIV particles?
EPE: No. The band should contain billions and when you take an electron micrograph they should fill the entire picture.
CJ: So the banded material contains only a few HIV particles and from the HIV particles’ point of view is rather impure?
EPE: Yes.
CJ: Do the experts comment on this?
EPE: They say the cellular material "co-purifies" with the HIV particles.
CJ: Tell me, the few particles they say are HIV, do they look like a retrovirus?
EPE: They bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles. For sure they look more like retroviral particles than all the other particles and material but even if they looked identical to retroviral particles you cannot say they are a retrovirus. Even Gallo admits to the existence of particles which band at 1.16 gm/ml and which have the appearances and biochemical properties of retroviruses but which are not retroviruses because they are incapable of replicating.(11)
CJ: All right, but that aside, what’s the difference between these particles and a real retroviral particle?
EPE: Gallo and all other retrovirologists, as well as Hans Gelderblom who has done most of the electron microscopy studies of HIV, agree that retrovirus particles are almost spherical in shape, have a diameter of 100-120 nanometres and are covered with knobs.(12,13) The particles the two groups claim are HIV are not spherical, no diameter is less than 120nM, in fact many of them have major diameters exceeding twice that permitted for a retrovirus. And none of them appear to have knobs.
CJ: Surely size can’t be that critical? Many things in Biology have a range of sizes. What about humans? There’s plenty of humans twice the size of other humans. They’re all still humans.
EPE: What’s true for humans is not true for retroviruses. For a start, retroviruses don’t have to grow up. They’re born adults. So the correct comparison is between adult humans. They’re aren’t too many twelve foot humans. In fact, the tallest human ever recorded was eight feet eleven inches. But there’s more than size involved here.
CJ: What else?
EPE: If we assume both the Franco/German and US groups sought particles at the correct retroviral density then the particles found by both groups must have the same density, 1.16 gm/ml. If you measure the major and minor diameters of the particles in the EMs they claim are HIV and take the average diameters and for argument’s sake, assume they’re all spherical, then the Franco/German particles are 1.14 times larger than genuine retroviral particles and the US particles are 1.96 times larger. Now, to translate this into volumes, we have to cube the ratios of the diameters. So, if we take 120nM as the upper limit for the diameter of a retroviral particle and do the sums, the Franco/German particles have 50% more volume than a retroviral particle and the US particles have 750% more volume. And the US particles are five times more voluminous than the Franco/German.
CJ: Which tells us what?
EPE: It tells us that the Franco/German and US particles must contain 50% or 750% more mass than genuine retroviral particles.
CJ: Why is that?
EPE: Because density is the ratio of mass to volume. If the volume goes up by a certain amount, to keep the same density, the mass has to go up by the same amount.
CJ: OK but what’s your point?
EPE: The point is that any genuine retroviral particle contains a fixed amount of RNA and protein. No more and no less. If that’s the case then these particles are made up of much more material than a genuine retrovirus. Which means that if these different sized particles are truly HIV then HIV cannot be a retrovirus. The only other explanation is that the electron micrographs are not from the 1.16 gm/ml band. If that’s the case then we have no choice but to redefine retroviruses and more importantly, not to consider the 1.16 band as HIV. But if we do that then all the research done on HIV using this band cannot be used because this is what everyone uses as purified HIV. That would mean for example that this band cannot be used to obtain proteins and RNA for use as diagnostic agents to prove HIV infection.
CJ: You mentioned the particles lacked knobs. How serious a deficiency is that?
EPE: All the AIDS experts agree that the knobs are absolutely essential for the HIV particle to lock on to a cell. As the first step in infecting that cell. So, no locking on, no infection. The experts all claim that the knobs contain a protein called gp120 which is the hook in the knobs that grabs hold of the surface of the cell it’s about to infect.(14) If HIV particles do not have knobs how is HIV able to replicate?
CJ: You mean it can't get hold of the cell to get inside?
EPE: Precisely. And if it can't replicate, HIV is not an infectious particle.
CJ: That sounds like a serious problem to me. How do the experts respond?
EPE: They avoid it. And the knobs problem is not something new. The German group drew attention to it in the late 1980s and again in 1992.(15,16) As soon as an HIV particle is released from a cell all the knobs disappear. This single fact has so many ramifications. For example, three quarters of all haemophiliacs tested are HIV antibody positive. And the claim is that haemophiliacs acquired these as a result of becoming HIV infected from infusions of contaminated factor VIII which they need to treat their clotting deficiency. The problem is that factor VIII is made from plasma. That’s blood with all the cells removed which means if there are any HIV particles present in factor VIII they must be floating free in solution. But if cell free HIV has no knobs those HIVs have no way of getting into fresh cells to infect them.
9. Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, Sattentau QJ. (1997). Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virol. 230:125-133.
10. Bess JW, Gorelick RJ, Bosche WJ, Henderson LE, Arthur LO. (1997). Microvesicles are a source of contaminating cellular proteins found in purified HIV-1 preparations. Virol. 230:134-144.
Niet waar is.dit lukt met all virussen
Steve met alle respect, ik begrijp dat je een positieve bijdrage wilt leveren, maar dit stadium zijn we al-lang voorbij in deze discussie. Lees eerst de discussie voordat je je er in gaat mengen. Er zijn wel degelijk mensen die dit kunnen weten, Iconoclaster is dr. in de biochemie en werkte dagelijks met virussen. Veel van de mensen die wij aanhalen in de literatuur zijn dan ook.steve schreef:1-Dat kan volgens mij wel iemand weten, misschien heeft er hier op dit forum daar niemand de genoeg kennis van, maar er zullen zeker wetenschappers zijn die dagelijks intensief bezig zijn met retro-virussen en dergelijke die wel kunnen zien of dit een retro-virus is.
2-Waarom is dit geen zorgvuldig geïsoleerd virus??? Als niemand kan weten wat het is, hoe weet jij dan zo zeker dat dit geen geisoleerd hiv is? Wat zijn je argumenten daarvoor.
