Subject: 3rd open letter to Duesberg: COMMENTS BY THE PERTH GROUP regarding the existence of HIV
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:18:47 +0100
From: Michael Nitsche <my...@...de>
Organization: TU Berlin
To: duesberg <duesberg@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,duesberg <duesberg@rumms.uni-mannheim.de>,
peter <peter@duesberg.com>
CC: rethink-de <rethink-de-list@TaoNet.org>,Stefan Lanka <lanka@free.de>,
Reappraising AIDS <reappraising-aids@i1.net>,Kary Mullis <kmullis1@san.rr.com>,
owner-rethinkaids <owner-rethinkaids@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
rasnick <rasnick@mindspring.com>, CIFarber <CIFarber@aol.com>,
"h.bialy" <h.bialy@natureny.com>, philpott <philpott@wwnet.com>,
jlaurits <jlaurits@capecod.net>,"g.stewart" <g.stewart@gifford.co.uk>,
philjohn <philjohn@uclink.berkeley.edu>,strohman <strohman@uclink4.berkeley.edu>,
vturner <vturner@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>,continu <continu@dircon.co.uk>,
Hector S-G <100043.2223@compuserve.com>,Christine Maggiore <Christine@heal-la.org>,
Deharven <pitou.deharven@wanadoo.fr>,djameltahi <djameltahi@hotmail.com>,
info <info@virusmyth.com>,"de meo, James DeMeo" <demeo@mind.net>,
Anthony Brink <arbrink@iafrica.com>

Dear Prof. Duesberg,

when I forwarded your answer to my 2nd open letter to Eleni Papadopulos
et al., the Perth Group, I asked them if they would like to defend their
scientific position and write an answer to you.

The Perth Group was so kind to send me a very detailed answer which I
hereby forward to you with my request to answer it and thereby help us
all to clarify exactly where the point is why you don't accept the
arguments of the Perth Group and still believe in the existence of HIV.

You will surely understand that to achieve this aim it is absolutely
important that you tell us your scientific position to every question,
claim and definition that is brought forward by the Perth Group.

To finally clarify the question if Peter Duesberg is right and HIV has
been shown to exist or if Eleni Papadopulos et al are right and there is
no evidence for such a thing as HIV we need to find out exactly where
you do not agree or do agree with the argumentation of the Perth Group.

Unfortunately it is an obvious fact that in the past you did not answer
most of the Perth Group's questions and that you did not explicitly
disagree with most of their definitions or implications.

But of course you MUST disagree with most if not all of their
reasonning. Otherwise you would have to accept that HIV has not been
shown to exist.

So to find out exactly where you do not agree with the Perth Group,
taking into consideration that you usually don't express your own
scientific positions when asked concrete questions by the Perth Group, I
decided to emphasize the most important issues and questions of the
Perth Group and write a default answer to these extracted points.
If you agree with a default answer you do not need to write your own
answer. But if you disagree with one of the default answers please tell
us that and WHY this is the case.
If you do not answer a question it is obvious that you accept its
default answer, otherwise it would be easy for you to object.

As I already pointed out this method of giving default answers is only
applied due to the fact that these questions have to be answered finally
to make a decision over the existence of HIV and that until now you have
ignored these questions of the Perth Group.

These issues and questions of the Perth Group are brought forward to
show you the holes in your argumentation that HIV exists. If you
continue to ignore these arguments by not saying anything about them,
e.g. if you agree or disagree, the Perth Group of course has NO CHANCE
to show you the holes in your argumentation or to realize their own holes.
Only a detailed discussion, where everybody tells his position to every
raised issue, can solve the open question.

You know better than me that this is not just an unimportant academic
discussion which has no side effects. If HIV really does not exist, then
we have the ultimate and strongest argument ever possible to fight
against the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS or anything else. Then it is
clear WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION (<--this is the NEW quality!) that
every HIV-testing or anti-HIV-medication is useless and harmful and has
to be stopped immediately.
And if HIV does exist it is also vital to finally clarify this and to
stop the split among the rethinkers and prevent them from being
misguided.

Please help us to find out the "truth" and answer every single point of
the Perth Group this time. I am sure this is also in your interest. The
Perth Group is prepared to discuss, now it depends on you, dear Peter
Duesberg.

The text that is added by me and does not belong to the answer of the
Perth Group but to this open letter will be put between these marks:
[---------> ... <---------]

But before I forward the letter of the Perth Group to you I would like
to remember you that you did not answer all of my questions from my 2nd
open letter although some of my questions are very important for the
argumentation that HIV exists.
So I will repeat these questions here again. I will also give a default
answer this time so that you do not need to answer these questions if
you agree to the default answers.

1.) In my last open letter I stated: "not a single of the following 5
steps of the standard virus isolation, which is generally accepted as a
valid method, has been done for HIV".

As you did not object your default answer is: "Yes, I agree fully. I do
not know of any scientific publications which can disprove your claim."

2.) Then I stated:
"As I learned one could never distinguish between "infected" and "not
infected" if you carry out the mock experiment for HIV or all so called
retroviruses. Both material supposed to be infected and also
non-infected material show the same phenomena which are interpreted as
retroviruses! Please correct me by naming scientific publications
disproving that. As one of the most important retrovirologists in the
world this should easily be possible for you."

As you did not object your default answer is: "Yes, I agree fully. I do
not know of any scientific publications which can disprove your claim."

3.) I stated: "As I have learned every single one of these steps was
demonstrated neither for HIV nor for any other retrovirus."

As you did not object your default answer is: "Yes, I agree fully. I do
not know of any scientific publications which can disprove your claim."

4.) I stated: "For HIV [...] this [photograph und measure the genetic
substance of viruses also in the electron microscope] has never been
done."

As you did not object your default answer is: "Yes, I agree fully. I do
not know of any scientific publications which can disprove your claim."

5.) I stated:
"Dear Peter Duesberg, if my information is wrong then please disprove my
naming of facts for only one single so called retrovirus, even if it
would just be for only one of the steps (one of the 5 steps of standard
virus isolation)."

As you did not object your default answer is: "I am sorry but I am not
able to name any scientific references that can disprove your naming of
facts, neither for one single retrovirus nor for any of the five
isolation steps."


Dear Peter Duesberg, if you disagree with any of the above default
answers, please correct it by giving your own. If you do not object, it
is obvious that you agree.


Now here is the answer of the Perth Group:

-------- Original Message --------
Received: from nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au (nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au
[165.118.97.16])by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA10723for
<my...@...de>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 04:15:38 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199902100315.EAA10723@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: by nt018cesep.health.wa.gov.au with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)id
<12L9MDSL>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:16:18 +0800
From: "Turner, Val" <Val.Turner@health.wa.gov.au>
To: "'my...@...de'" <my...@...de>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:09:00 +0800
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9)
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 9003
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: b2490e308a2fcbb8c1f5e04945c18815

COMMENTS TO MICHAEL NITSCHE
REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF HIV

Dear Michael,

Thank you for forwarding your correspondence with Peter Duesberg. We agree
wholeheartedly that it is vital to "finally decide if Peter is right and HIV
has been shown to exist or if Papadopulos/Lanka et al are right and there is
no evidence for such a thing as HIV". We also received your email dated
25th January where you seek our view regarding Professor deHarven's comments
on "a serious, erroneous statement you make concerning retroviruses".
Etienne continues, "Towards the end of your letter, in the paragraph
starting "Es ist sehr leicht....", you state that the genome of "all
retroviruses" has never been imaged with the electron microscope! This is
absolutely false."

We, "the Perth team members", have never stated that "the genome of "all
retroviruses" has never been imaged with the electron microscope!" In fact,
in our view, such a picture is not necessary to prove the existence of the
genome of a virus, or that an EM picture of a nucleic acid fragment proves
its viral origin. This is Stefan's claim. Unfortunately, this is not the
only difference between Stefan and us. For this reason, and for the sake of
scientific accuracy as well as our own credibility, and not because "the
Perth group has turned away from Dr Lanka", we would much prefer not to be
referred to as the "Perth group/Lanka" or "Papadopulos/Lanka", or
"Lanka/Papadopulos". We hope this clarifies the matter.

Also, in your email January 29th you asked us if we "would like to write to
Duesberg to defend our scientific position". We have already dealt with
this matter in considerable detail in the past1 and cannot see that Peter
has introduced any new arguments with which we have not already dealt. In
fact, unlike his argument in Continuum, in the correspondence with you,
Peter seems to have restricted his arguments and only states: "I did not
"imply" anything about the HIV genome. I reported the evidence for its
existence and function as infectious DNA that is available in the literature
and asked you to identify deficiencies in that evidence that I may have
missed".

Once again Peter does not define what he means by "infectious DNA", that is,
what in his opinion Fisher et al, Levy et al and Barnett et al have proved.
Does he mean:

(i) Introduction of a cDNA, obtained from an RNA originating from a
retroviral particle, into the cells leading to the synthesis of retroviral
particles identical to the one from which the RNA was obtained, virus
cloning?

(ii) Introduction of a DNA into the cell leading to its replication,
transcription into RNA and RNA translation into proteins, that is,
transfection?

(iii) Introduction of a DNA into the cells and its replication?

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer will be: "I mean number (iii):
Introduction of a DNA into the cells and its replication?"
<---------]

In our Continuum answer to Peter in section 7 we carefully analysed the
evidence in the above papers cited by Peter and found there is definitely no
proof for (i) (the only one relevant to the existence of a retrovirus) and
(ii). It would be wasteful to repeat this here. They may well have
achieved replication of some DNA but given the methods they have used they
could have obtained the same results with any DNA, complete or "not
complete", (the smaller the better), viral or non-viral. Therefore, if the
sole proof that the DNA which Peter refers to was infectious and of
retroviral origin rests on its cellular uptake and replication, then all DNA
must be infectious and of retroviral origin.

[--------->
1.) The Perth Group states above: "[...] in the above papers cited by
Peter...there is definitely no proof for (i)... and (ii)"

If you do not object your default answer will be: "Yes, I agree with
this statement. In fact in section 7 of their Continuum paper the Perth
Group proved that."

2.) The Perth Group states above: "(i) [is] the only one relevant to the
existence of a retrovirus"

If you do not object your default answer will be: "Yes, I agree with
this statement."

3.) The Perth Group states above: "[...] given the methods they have
used they could have obtained the same results with any DNA, complete or
"not complete", (the smaller the better), viral or non-viral."

If you do not object your default answer will be: "Yes, I agree with
this statement. So my argument from my last letter to you is irrelevant
when I said 'If their DNA were "no complete", as you claim, it would not
have been infectious.'"
<---------]

We repeat, the only way to prove that an RNA (and its cDNA, the provirus) is
the genome of a retrovirus is to demonstrate that it comes from a retroviral
particle and it codes for its proteins. This has never been done by
anybody, including the authors cited by Peter. Instead: Gallo, Montagnier
and Levy developed co-cultures of either leukemic or transformed cells with
normal T cells. To "shock" the culture, to use a Barbara McClintock term,2
they used several agents and also added supernatant from cultures containing
tissue originating from AIDS patients. The supernatant from the co-cultures
was banded in sucrose gradients. From the material which banded at 1.16g/m
band and which they said represented "purified" HIV they arbitrarily chose
some RNA and they called it HIV RNA and its cDNA, HIV DNA. However,
according to Montagnier their "pure" HIV had some types of particles, but
not particles with "morphology typical of retroviruses". As a method of
obtaining the HIV genome, this is comparable to a paternal lawsuit case
where, after obtaining DNA from a blood sample not proven to come from a man
and definitely not from the alleged father, it is claimed to be the supposed
father's DNA and is used to compare with the child's DNA.

[--------->
The Perth Group states above: "[...] the only way to prove that an RNA
(and its cDNA, the provirus) is the genome of a retrovirus is to
demonstrate that it comes from a retroviral particle and it codes for
its proteins. This has never been done by anybody, including the
authors cited by Peter."

If you do not object your default answer will be: "Yes, I agree with
this statement."
<---------]

If the "HIV DNA" ("HIV RNA") was a fragment of exogenous DNA, be it viral or
non viral present only in certain groups of individuals then, using it as a
probe, it should be easy to detect it by hybridisation assays.

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "Yes, I
agree with this statement."
<---------]

Gallo performed such assays in 1984. They reported that "HTLV-III DNA is
usually not detected by standard Southern blotting hybridisation...when it
is, the bands are often faint".3 The finding that when the results were
positive the hybridisation bands were "faint", "low signal" was interpreted
as proof that HIV seropositive individuals contain HIV DNA in small numbers
of cells and at low copy numbers, an interpretation which became accepted by
nearly everybody including Peter, although Gallo and his colleagues had an
alternative explanation: "Theoretically, this low signal intensity could
also be explained by the presence of virus distantly homologous to HTLV-III
in these cells". This alternative explanation has been ignored by
everybody, including Gallo. However, at a 1994 meeting held in Washington
sponsored by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse, Gallo admitted "We
have never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS...In fact we have never
found HIV DNA in T-cells".4

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer will be: "Given the above I
agree that the alternative explanation can very well be the case."
<---------]

The "HIV genome" was resurrected by the introduction of PCR. However:

(i) The finding of positive PCR results in "HIV-negative" individuals
led even the HIV/AIDS experts themselves to doubt the usefulness of the PCR
test to prove HIV infection. "Since their specificity is not well known,
these tests must not be used for diagnostic purposes".5 "Plasma viral load
tests for HIV-1 were neither developed nor evaluated for the diagnosis of
HIV infection; therefore, their diagnostic specificity is not well
delineated for the diagnosis of HIV infection when applied to persons who
are negative for HIV antibody".6 In a study reported by "Seven French
laboratories with extensive experience in PCR detection of HIV DNA", the
concordance between HIV serology and "HIV DNA" varied between 40-100% and
"the number of positive PCR results did not differ significantly between
high and low risk seronegatives";7
.

(ii) Even with PCR to date nobody has presented proof for the existence
even in one single human being of a "full-length infectious HIV DNA".

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "Yes, I
agree with this statement."
<---------]

Let us assume:

(a) There are some people who have a 9Kb fragment of DNA that "had no
sequences in common with the human genome".

(b) The fragments are identical.

(c) That the fragments are exogenous. (Although even Peter will agree
that the human genome contains endogenous retroviruses and that one of their
main characteristics is recombination. Peter himself proved it). The
question then arises:

(i) How does one know that it is a retroviral DNA? (After all there is
nothing magic about retroviral DNA. If retroviral DNA can be integrated
into the cellular DNA, so should be the DNA or cDNA of other infectious
agents).

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "I have
no idea how to do that, too."
<---------

(ii) Even if it is viral, is it a retroviral DNA?

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "I don't
know, too."
<---------

(iii) Even if it is retroviral, is it the genome of a unique retrovirus,
HIV?

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "Well,
maybe or may not be, who knows."
<---------

The retroviral RNA is packaged into particles i.e. retrovirus like
all other infectious agents are not a fragment of RNA (DNA) but particles.
This is necessary for infectivity. Where is the proof for the existence of
infectious retroviral particles?

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "There is
no such proof."
<---------

If one assumes that this virus, HIV, has yet another exceptional
quality, i.e. it is just a fragment of DNA or RNA, how did the infected
individuals acquire it?

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "I have
no explanation."
<---------

Haemophiliacs are the risk group with the highest percentage of "HIV
infection". They are said to become "infected" via contaminated factor
VIII. However, to date nobody has found proof (not due to lack of trying)
that factor VIII contains either "HIV RNA" or "HIV DNA".8

"HIV" and thus "HIV DNA" is said to be most efficiently transmitted by
sexual intercourse. Yet to date nobody has proven the existence in sexual
secretions of a 9kB fragment which has "no sequences in common with the
human genome". As far as "infection" (positive antibody test) is concerned
it is sufficient to look at Nancy Padian's work. In her 10 year study,
unquestionably the longest and the best study of its kind, Padian and her
colleagues have spared no effort to prove that "HIV" is sexually
transmitted. There were two parts in her study, one cross-sectioned the
other prospective. In the former, of 360 female partners of infected male
index cases, "The constant per-contact infectivity for male-to-female
transmission was estimated to be 0.0009". The risk factors for
seroconversion were:

(i) Anal intercourse. (Montagnier himself showed that a positive
antibody test reverts to negative by stopping anal intercourse, which means
that the positive outcome is not due to a retrovirus);9

(ii) Having partners who acquired this infection through drug use (Padian
herself says that this means that the woman may also be IV user);

(iii) The presence in the female of STD. (The antibodies to their
causative agents may cross-react with the "HIV" proteins.10

Of 82 negative male partners of positive female index cases only two
seroconverted. They estimated that the likelihood of female-to-male
transmission was 8 times lower than for male-to-female. (One wonders how it
is possible to make any estimation from just two cases). Furthermore,
Padian herself questioned the validity of these 2 cases. For the first one
she gave several reasons in 1991, when reported for the first time. In the
second case they mentioned the fact that "chlamydia was transmitted
simultaneously or close to transmission of HIV is striking".

In the prospective study, starting in 1990, "We followed 175 HIV-discordant
couples over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of
follow-up...The longest duration of follow-up was 12 visits (6 years). We
observed no seroconversions after entry into the study...At last follow-up,
couples were much more likely to be abstinent or to use condoms constantly,
and were much more likely to practice anal intercourse (P < 0.0005 for all).
Nevertheless only 75% reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior
to their final follow-up visit". Based on the 2/86 men who became HIV
positive in the early study, the risk to a non-infected male from his HIV
positive female partner was reported to be in the order of 1/9000 per
contact. From this statistic one can calculate that on average, a male
would need to have 6000 sexual contacts with an infected female to achieve a
50% chance of becoming HIV positive. At three contacts per week this would
take 56 years, or a life time.11

Note: Not only were seroconversion reported only in the
cross-sectional study but all cases were diagnosed before 1990. However:

(i) All the "HIV" experts agree that the specificity of the test kits
used then was not as good as those at present;

(ii) The WB criteria used to define "infection" then are not sufficient
at present.

Peter's first response to the Continuum challenge started with "In 1983
Montagnier et al isolated a retrovirus, now termed Human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV) ...". He also asserted that the challenge to the existence of
HIV "fails to explain (i) why virtually all people who contain HIV DNA also
contain antibodies against Montagnier's HIV strain - the gold standard of
all HIV tests and (ii) why most, but certainly not all people who lack HIV
DNA contain no such antibodies. Thus Peter assumes the existence of a
Montagnier HIV virus and a valid antibody test for it.

[--------->
The Perth Group states above: "Thus Peter assumes the existence of a
Montagnier HIV virus and a valid antibody test for it."

If you do not object your default answer will be: "This is correct. At
that time I assumed that."
<---------

Like everybody else Montagnier accepts that to prove the existence of a
retrovirus one must isolate it, purify it. Similarly, to develop antibody
tests one must first analyse the retroviral proteins and that "analysis of
the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is
necessary to do that."

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "Yes, I
agree fully with the above."
<---------

>From 1983 to 1997, Montagnier claimed that he and his team as well as
Gallo's team had done exactly this. However, when pressed in an interview
with Djamel Tahi, he stated "I repeat, we did not purify". When asked if
Gallo had achieved purification he replied "I don't believe so". Not only
did he admit that they did not isolate HIV but that, even after Roman effort
in their "purified" virus, they could not see any particles with "morphology
typical of retroviruses".12 Yet, from this "purified virus" Montagnier and
his colleagues claimed to have found HIV proteins and RNA.13

[--------->
If you do not object your default answer to the above will be: "Given
the above I agree now: There is no Montagnier HIV virus and no valid
antibody test for it."
<---------


REFERENCES
1. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. (1996).
The Isolation of HIV: Has it really been achieved? Continuum 4:1s-24s.
2. McClintock B. (1984). The significance of responses of the genome to
challenge. Science 226:792-801.
3. Shaw GM, Hahn BH, Arya S, Groopman JE, Gallo RC, Wong-Staal F. (1984).
Molecular characterization of human T-cell leukemia (lymphotropic) virus
type III in the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Science 226:1165-1171.
4. Lauritsen JL. NIDA meeting calls for research into the poppers-Kaposi's
sarcoma connection. (1995). p. 325-330 In: AIDS: Virus- or Drug Induced
Duesberg PH, ed Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
5. de Mendoza C, Holguin A, Soriano V. (1998). False positive for HIV using
commercial viral load quantification assays. AIDS 12:2076-2077.
6. Rich JD, Merriman NA, Mylonakis E, et al. (1999). Misdiagnosis of HIV
infection by HIV-1 plasma viral load testing: A case series. Ann. Int. Med.
130:37-39.
7. Defer C, Agut H, Garbarg-Chenon A, et al. (1992). Multicentre quality
control of polymerase chain reaction for detection of HIV DNA. AIDS
6:659-663.
8. Papadopulos-Eleopopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. (1995).
Factor VIII, HIV and AIDS in haemophiliacs: an analysis of their
relationship. Genetica 95:25-50.
9. Burger H, Weiser B, Robinson WS, et al. (1985). Transient antibody to
lymphadenopathy-associated virus/human T-lymphotropic virus type III and
T-lymphocyte abnormalities in the wife of a man who developed the acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome. Ann. Int. Med. 103:545-7.
10. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. (1997).
HIV antibodies: Further questions and a plea for clarification. Curr. Med.
Res. Opinion 13:627-634.
11. Padian NS, Shiboski SC, Glass SO, Vittinghoff E. (1997). Heterosexual
transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in northern California:
results from a ten-year study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146:350-357.
12. Tahi D. (1998). Did Luc Montagnier discover HIV? Text of video
interview with Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th
1997. Continuum 5:30-34.
13. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D, Page B.
(1998). HIV Antibody Tests and Viral Load - More Unanswered Questions and a
Further Plea for Clarification. Curr. Med. Res. Opinion 14:185-186.

Best wishes,


Eleni Papadopulos and the Perth Group

------------------------------

This was the answer by the Perth Group. Dear Peter Duesberg, I am
looking forward to your answer, because this will finally clarify in
detail where you and the Perth Group do or do not agree, because this
time you will answer every single point of them, either by quietly
accepting the default answer or by objecting to it.

Finally I also want to forward 2 emails from Prof. DeHarven to you.
Perhaps you would also like to comment on his statements as they
contradict your claims.

Looking forward to your detailed answer, thank you very much in advance,

Yours sincerely,
Michael


-------- Prof. De Harven's 1st email----------
Subject: Open letter to P. Duesberg
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:03:33 +0000
From: Deharven <pitou.deharven@wanadoo.fr>
To: Michael Nitsche <my...@...de>
CC: Dr G Stewart <g.stewart@gifford.co.uk>

Dear Dr. Nitsche:
Professor Gordon Stewart sent me the English translation of your "Open
letter to Prof. Duesberg: Existence of HIV".
I read your letter with great interest, and I agree with your analysis
of the 5 standard steps of virus isolation. I have worked most of my
professional life in electron microscopy of RNA tumor viruses and I am
very familiar with the retroviruses scientific literature. Personnally,
I have considerable doubts about the existence of what is currently
called "HIV".
This being said, and reading your letter carefully, I must bring to your
attention a serious, erroneous statement you make concerning
retroviruses.
Toward the end of your letter, in the paragraph starting with "Es ist
sehr leicht...", you state that the genome of "all retroviruses" has
never been imaged with the electron microscope ! This is absolutely
false. Obviously, your reviewing of the literature has to be completed.
To help you in that direction I am listing here some of the most
important references, which you should study carefully.
1) Granboulan N et al. (1966). Examen au microscope électronique du RNA
du virus de la myéloblastose aviaire. Journal of Molecular Biology
16,571.
2) Bader JP and Steck FL (1969). Analysis of the ribonucleic acid of
murine leukemia virus. Journal of Virology 4,454-459.
3) Evenson DP et al. (1975). Electron microscopy of a tumor virus RNA.
Proc. of the Electr. Microsc. Soc. of America 35, 646-647.
4) Evenson DP (1977). Electron microscopy of viral nucleic acids.
Methods in Virology 6,219-264.
5) Weber GH et al. (1974). Visualisation of single-stranded nucleic acid
of RNA tumor virus with the electron microscope. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
USA 71,1887-1890.
6) Heine UL et al, (1975). Analysis of oncornavirus RNA subunits by
electron microscopy. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 72, 3713-3720.
7) Evenson DP et al. (1978). The sizes of RNA subunits isolated from
high and low leukeamogenic Friend virus. J. Gen. Virology 39,475-486.
This list is probably not complete, but these are the references which
came immediately to my mind when I read your letter. I knew very well
Don Evenson who was a post-doctoral fellow in my lab at Sloan Kettering
Institute in New York in the mid 1970s.
In my views, the success of all these EM studies of retroviral RNAs was
primarily dependent on the initial careful isolation and purification of
the RNA tumor viruses under study, these essential initial steps being
always rigorously controlled by EM (which, of course, could never be
done with HIV !)
Of course, I shall be most interested in getting copies of whatever
answers you get from P. Duesberg.
Please, don't hesitate to write to me if I can be of any further help in
your retroviral studies.
Hoping to hear from you soon, and with best regards,
Etienne de Harven, MD
Emeritus Prof. of Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
January 25, 1999.


-------- Prof. De Harven's 2nd email----------
Subject: Re: Open letter
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:13:15 +0000
From: Deharven <pitou.deharven@wanadoo.fr>
To: Michael Nitsche <my...@...de>

Dear Michael:
I was interested to read your Jan 25 message.
I want to clarify your question concerning "you just assume that an
initial isolation was carried out?"
This is not at all an "assumption"; it is a well documented fact !
In the case of the work by D. Evenson, for example, I shall give you the
reference of two of his earlier papers which demonstrate clearly the
attention Evenson was giving to virus purification before making any
effort to isolate viral RNA.
1) Evenson DP and de Harven E (1973). An improved method for purifying
RNA tumor viruses from large volumes of tissue culture fluid. Fed. Proc.
32:#3, 852.
2) Evenson DP. et al. (1975). A quantitative comparison between in vivo-
and in vitro-derived Friend leukemia virus. Int. J. Cancer 16:819-829.
Look carefully to this second paper and to the 2 EM pictures on page 823
for a perfect EM demonstration of the level of isolation and
purification Evenson was achieving. It is on such samples that his 1978
paper was based for RNA EM studies.
The reason why nobody has ever published an EM picture of HIV RNA is
simply that nobody has ever succeeded in isolating and purifying the
so-called HIV in a way which could compare with what Evenson was doing
in the 1970s. It is absolute non-sense to expect results on HIV RNA
without first succeeding in isolation and purification ! Without that
essential initial step, one can get fragments of cellular nucleic acid
and try to attract attention on these fragments by PCR amplification,
but this type of work is meaningless and certainly has nothing to do
with the study of the so-called HIV.
I hope I have clearly answered your question ?
With every best wishes,
Etienne de Harven,
January 27, 1999.


--
| Michael Nitsche |
| TU Berlin, FB 13 (Informatik) |
| Deutschland |
| email: my...@...de |
| WWW: http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~myny/ |

"Open letter to Peter Duesberg"-WWW-site:
http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~myny/duesberg-brief.htm