LANKA REPLIES TO DUESBERG (II)

The latest reaction of Peter Duesberg (1) to the ascertainment that "HIV" does not exist (2), and to the thorough line of argument that all claims about and characteristics ascribed to "HIV" do not withstand specific scientific examination (3), raises questions:

- Why does he so vehemently defend something for which there are not only no proofs but also no necessity, and which has pushed millions of people into fear of a retroviral plague transmitted through sex and blood?

- Why do "HIV"-virologists never subject their "viruses" to the same generally accepted standard techniques of molecular biology as all other virologists and biologists do?

In his latest monograph of 5.11.96 Peter Duesberg introduces a more untenable claim than ever, which neither he nor anybody else can substantiate, to suggest again that there is a genetic entity "HlV": he equates cloning, a standard technique of multiplying a given genetic sequence, with virus isolation and the existence of "HIV"!

After the question of the existence of "HIV" was first posed and people began to rethink "HIV" and to understand that with the available, exact identification techniques of Genetics, Biochemistry and Virology not a single aspect of the existence of "HIV" has been proved, apparently there was a desire quickly to postulate new criteria for its existence. That this new line of argument is put by Peter Duesberg, known for his critique of the idea of an infectious AIDS yet otherwise one of the godfathers of retrovirology is revealing.

But the quicksand beneath Duesberg's construct is visible:

- when instead of referring to the established criteria of structural identification, he now postulates functional criteria: "cloning (multiplying) is isolation", though the thing to be cloned has never been identified as part of "HIV". No structural criteria with which one can exactly identify genuine biological entities are to be used in the case of "HIV" - no analysis of the form and size of an isolated virus, the kind and composition of its proteins (e.g. if one wants to use the proteins in an approved antibody-test), its genetic substance (e.g. if one wants to carry out the test-tube experiments which Duesberg cites or do viral-load measurements). We are encouraged arbitrarily to believe in only the repetition of processes, which ad hoc were ascribed to be viral attributes.

- when he claims there are at least 19 full-length HIV genomes that 19 molecules of the complete genetic substance of "HIV" exist in this world though this has not been shown or claimed in a single scientific publication.

For the purpose of secure identification of a virus, the right means - the means of structural isolation - have to be applied before one carries out functional examinations with parts of the virus. For a clear understanding of this important argument, the main terms are again briefly explained here:

A virus is an acellular form of organism, being no more and no less than a piece of genetic substance (according to a given species of virus, always of the same length) and a covering surrounding the genetic substance, composed mainly of proteins (according to a given species of virus, always of the same form and size). Viruses are stable because they have to leave cells or even the organism in order to infect other cells or organisms anew. Using centrifugation techniques it is no problem to separate viruses from all contaminating components and in doing so to isolate them - then photograph them, then represent their proteins and genetic substance in a direct way.

In the case of "HlV" this has not been done up to today, for "HIV" as a whole or therefore for any of its components - its proteins or genetic substance (2, 3).

The scientific conclusion is that the existence of ,,HIV,, has so far not been proved; the logical explanation, given that all characteristics ascribed to "HIV" are well-known cellular entities and characteristics, is that "HIV" never was, and the claim of the existence of "HIV" is not sustainable.