Super virus turns out to be a scam

On Saturday, New York health officials were criticized as having acted too hastily in alerting the public that an antiretroviral-naive city resident recently contracted HIV resistant to three ARV drug classes and quickly progressed to AIDS.

Just one case "was not enough to warrant a public health alert," said Dr. Robert Gallo, a leading virologist at University of Maryland. "It's irresponsible and outrageous. We've already heard past claims about superviruses that all turn out to be nonsense.

From the science, I would say the probability is very high that you won't see this virus again," he said. Gallo noted that other HIV patients have quickly developed AIDS before responding to treatment and said that officials should have waited to see if a cluster of cases similar to the man's developed. Asked whether the city overreacted, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "We have first and foremost a responsibility to educate the public as to what they can do to save their lives."

Gallo's remarks are "a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of public health," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, commissioner of New York's health department. "This has occurred in a man who was using crystal [methamphetamine] and probably got it from somebody he had sex with." Since the infected man had unprotected sex with numerous partners, Frieden said the city could not wait to see if a cluster emerged.

Ho, meanwhile, was coming under heavy criticism."When I first heard this, I said, Holy shit‹there is no evidence, says Dr. Robert Gallo, an eminent virologist. ?Clearly, conclusively, scientifically, it was inappropriate to make that statement.

Gallo and other leading figures in the field including Dr. Tony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases believe the new case report, while unfortunate for the patient, is likely a statistically predictable outlier.

Unfortunately, according to data generated by Ho's institute, drug-resistant HIV is now commonplace: Nearly 30 percent of newly diagnosed HIV cases are resistant to at least one AIDS drug, and 11 percent are resistant to drugs in two or more drug classes.

Many saw the announcement as grandstanding. Michael Petrelis, an AIDS activist and blogger from San Francisco, fanned the flames with revelations about Ho's links to Frieden (who sits on the Aaron Diamond Board of Directors) and the San Francisco laboratory that does the resistance testing, ViroLogic (as a scientific adviser, he receives a stipend and stock options).

THE GREAT HIV / AIDS HOAX

The multi-billion dollar AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications: that AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the "HIV virus" as some medical/media masterminds call it - perhaps they think the V in HIV stands for volcano.

In Japan "AIDS" is virtually unknown : yet, in random tests, 25% of people were found to be "HIV-positive".
HIV-positive response means nothing of any relevance to health: it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza,
papilloma virus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis, syphillis ... : over sixty different conditions.

Dr Robert E. Willner, inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television: an event which was not picked up the pharma-beholden British or US media.

The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of "scientific misconduct". "...instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers...he went public. Then, with the help of
Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous
world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about.

This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands... It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the day after the announcement...Gallo is now a multi-millionaire because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test." Dr.
Willner.

By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors -
pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections, vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and,
particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and "slim disease" - and calling the whole thing an "AIDS epidemic", a multi-billion dollar/pound "AIDS research and treatment" racket has been created.

The mythical "HIV-induced AIDS plague" in the Third World generates huge sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the
vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.

Every death of someone "HIV-positive" is recorded as an "AIDS death".

Periodically, the BBC/ITV/Press visit
Africa/Yugoslavia/Russia etc to
report on the "HIV/AIDS victims" and how they cannot afford the "life-saving AZT." Glaxo Wellcome's lethal drug, AZT, in combination with the diagnosis of
HIV-positive and the prediction, stated or implied, that - "You will die of AIDS" is one of the great pieces of Medical Black Magic - Voodoo Medicine at its most impressive: people have committed suicide on the
basis of the ludicrous diagnosis.

Pregnant women who are HIV-positive have been told to stop breast-feeding, dosed with AZT, have had abortions or have been sterilised. HIV-positive
babies who become ill -from vaccination or whatever - are automatically diagnosed as "suffering from AIDS".
"Considering that there is little scientific proof of the exact linkage of HIV and AIDS, is it ethical to prescribe AZT, a toxic chain terminator of DNA...to 150,000 Americans - among them pregnant women and newborn babies..? Rep.G Gutknecht US House of Representatives.

New Labour "Health" have now announced that all pregnant women in the UK will be "offered" a HIV test. Those who fall for the scam and who are diagnosed as "HIV positive" will be given the chance to have themselves and their unborn child permanently damaged by AZT etc. Pregnancy, itself, can cause a positive diagnosis.

AZT began as a "cancer drug" but was withdrawn for being too toxic: like being thrown out of the Gestapo for cruelty. Its effects include - cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, , severe
nausea, ataxia, etc. and the termination of DNA synthesis. i.e. AIDS/death by prescription. AZT eventually kills all those who continue to take it.

"WARNING : Retrovir (AZT)...has been associated with symptomatic myopathy, similar to that produced by Human Immunodeficiency Virus..." Glaxo
Wellcome literature!

None of which stops the medical trade from pushing it on every trusting sap who is not ill to start with but is labelled with the "HIV-positive" nonsense and then destroyed by AZT; with "AIDS" getting the blame - and
more billions pouring in for the drug boys, vivisectors, animal breeders and the rest. The latest stunt is to give a "cocktail" of drugs - including AZT, of course, and at £12,000 per head, per year - to all homosexual men who are "HIV-positive".

A particularly good scam is to haul into court someone "guilty of deliberately infecting the victim with the 'HIV-Virus which causes AIDS' " which then develops into "full-blown AIDS" - no mention of vaccine,
antibiotic damage etc or full-blown AZT. Over 2000 - and rising, of the world's scientists are now disputing the HIV hoax, their efforts being continually suppressed by the AIDS establishment, the pharmaceutical/vivisection syndicate and their political and media lackeys

The Hidden Face of HIV – Part 1
"Knowing is Beautiful"
http://gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1035

by Liam Scheff

As a journalist who writes about AIDS, I am endlessly amazed by the difference between the public and the private face of HIV; between what the public is told and what’s explained in the medical literature. The public face of HIV is well-known: HIV is a sexually transmitted virus that particularly preys on gay men, African Americans, drug users, and just about all of Africa, although we’re all at risk. We’re encouraged to be tested, because, as the MTV ads say, "knowing is beautiful." We also know that AIDS drugs are all that’s stopping the entire African continent from falling into the sea.

The medical literature spells it out differently – quite differently. The journals that review HIV tests, drugs and patients, as well as the instructional material from medical schools, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and HIV test manufacturers will agree with the public perception in the large print. But when you get past the titles, they’ll tell you, unabashedly, that HIV tests are not standardized; that they’re arbitrarily interpreted; that HIV is not required for AIDS; and finally, that the term HIV does not describe a single entity, but instead describes a collection of non-specific, cross-reactive cellular material.

That’s quite a difference.

The popular view of AIDS is held up by concerned people desperate to help the millions of Africans stricken with AIDS, the same disease that first afflicted young gay American men in the 1980s. The medical literature differs on this point. It says that that AIDS in Africa has always been diagnosed differently than AIDS in the US.

In 1985, The World Health Organization called a meeting in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, to define African AIDS. The meeting was presided over by CDC official Joseph McCormick. He wrote about in his book "Level 4 Virus hunters of the CDC," saying, "If I could get everyone at the WHO meeting in Bangui to agree on a single, simple definition of what an AIDS case was in Africa, then, imperfect as the definition might be, we could actually start counting the cases..." The results – African AIDS would be defined by physical symptoms: fever, diarrhea, weight loss and coughing or itching. ("AIDS in Africa: an epidemiological paradigm." Science, 1986)

In Sub-Saharan African about 60 percent of the population lives and dies without safe drinking water, adequate food or basic sanitation. A September, 2003 report in the Ugandan Daily "New Vision" outlined the situation in Kampala, a city of approximately 1.3 million inhabitants, which, like most tropical countries, experiences seasonal flooding. The report describes "heaps of unclaimed garbage" among the crowded houses in the flood zones and "countless pools of water [that] provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes and create a dirty environment that favors cholera."

"[L]atrines are built above water streams. During rains the area residents usually open a hole to release feces from the latrines. The rain then washes away the feces to streams, from where the [area residents] fetch water. However, not many people have access to toilet facilities. Some defecate in polythene bags, which they throw into the stream." They call these, "flying toilets.’’

The state-run Ugandan National Water and Sewerage Corporation states that currently 55% of Kampala is provided with treated water, and only 8% with sewage reclamation.

Most rural villages are without any sanitary water source. People wash clothes, bathe and dump untreated waste up and downstream from where water is drawn. Watering holes are shared with animal populations, which drink, bathe, urinate and defecate at the water source. Unmanaged human waste pollutes water with infectious and often deadly bacteria. Stagnant water breeds mosquitoes, which bring malaria. Infectious diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, TB, malaria and famine are the top killers in Africa. But in 1985, they became AIDS.

The public service announcements that run on VH1 and MTV, informing us of the millions of infected, always fail to mention this. I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with the information that 40 million people are dying and nothing can be done. I wonder why we wouldn’t be interested in building wells and providing clean water and sewage systems for Africans. Given our great concern, it would seem foolish not to immediately begin the "clean water for Africa" campaign. But I’ve never heard such a thing mentioned.

The UN recommendations for Africa actually demand the opposite –"billions of dollars" taken out of "social funds, education and health projects, infrastructure [and] rural development" and "redirected" into sex education (UNAIDS, 1999). No clean water, but plenty of condoms.

I have, however, felt the push to get AIDS drugs to Africans. Drugs like AZT and Nevirapine, which are supposed to stop the spread of HIV, especially in pregnant women. AZT and Nevirapine also terminate life. The medical literature and warning labels list the side effects: blood cell destruction, birth defects, bone-marrow death, spontaneous abortion, organ failure, and fatal skin rot. The package inserts also state that the drugs don’t "stop HIV or prevent AIDS illnesses."

The companies that make these drugs take advantage of the public perception that HIV is measured in individual African AIDS patients, and that African AIDS - water-borne illness and poverty - can be cured by AZT and Nevirapine. That’s good capitalism, but it’s bad medicine.

Currently MTV, Black Entertainment Television and VH1 are running "Know HIV/AIDS"-sponsored advertisements of handsome young couples, black and white, touching, caressing, sensually, warming up to love-making. The camera moves over their bodies, hands, necks, mouth, back, legs and arms – and we see a small butterfly bandage over their inner elbows, where they’ve given blood for an HIV test. The announcer says, "Knowing is beautiful. Get tested."

A September, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article considered the "beauty" of testing. It told the story of 59 year-old veteran Jim Malone, who’d been told in 1996 that he was HIV positive. His health was diagnosed as "very poor." He was classified as, "permanently disabled and unable to work or participate in any stressful situation whatsoever." Malone said, "When I wasn’t able to eat, when I was sick, my in-home health care nurse would say, ‘Well, Jim, it goes with your condition.’

In 2004, his doctor sent him a note to tell him he was actually negative. He had tested positive at one hospital, and negative at another. Nobody asked why the second test was more accurate than the first (that was the protocol at the Veteran’s Hospital). Having been falsely diagnosed and spending nearly a decade waiting, expecting to die, Malone said, "I would tell people to get not just one HIV test, but multiple tests. I would say test, test and retest."

In the article, AIDS experts assured the public that the story was "extraordinarily rare." But the medical literature differs significantly.

In 1985, at the beginning of HIV testing, it was known that "68% to 89% of all repeatedly reactive ELISA (HIV antibody) tests [were] likely to represent false positive results." (NEJM - New England Journal of Medicine. 312; 1985).

In 1992, the Lancet reported that for 66 true positives, there were 30,000 false positives. And in pregnant women, "there were 8,000 false positives for 6 confirmations." (Lancet. 339; 1992)

In September 2000, the Archives of Family Medicine stated that the more women we test, the greater "the proportion of false-positive and ambiguous (indeterminate) test results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

The tests described above are standard HIV tests, the kind promoted in the ads. Their technical name is ELISA or EIA (Enzyme-linked Immunosorbant Assay). They are antibody tests. The tests contain proteins that react with antibodies in your blood.

In the US, you’re tested with an ELISA first. If your blood reacts, you’ll be tested again, with another ELISA. Why is the second more accurate than the first? That’s just the protocol. If you have a reaction on the second ELISA, you’ll be confirmed with a third antibody test, called the Western Blot. But that’s here in America. In some countries, one ELISA is all you get.

It is precisely because HIV tests are antibody tests, that they produce so many false-positive results. All antibodies tend to cross-react. We produce antibodies all the time, in response to stress, malnutrition, illness, drug use, vaccination, foods we eat, a cut, a cold, even pregnancy. These antibodies are known to make HIV tests come up as positive.

The medical literature lists dozens of reasons for positive HIV test results: "transfusions, transplantation, or pregnancy, autoimmune disorders, malignancies, alcoholic liver disease, or for reasons that are unclear..."(Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct. 2000).

"[H]uman or technical errors, other viruses and vaccines" (Infectious Disease Clinician of North America. 7; 1993)

"[L]iver diseases, parenteral substance abuse, hemodialysis, or vaccinations for hepatitis B, rabies, or influenza..." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"[U]npasteurized cows’ milk…Bovine exposure, or cross-reactivity with other human retroviruses" (Transfusion. 1988)

Even geography can do it:
"Inhabitants of certain regions may have cross-reactive antibodies to local prevalent non-HIV retroviruses" (Medicine International. 56; 1988).

The same is true for the confirmatory test – the Western Blot.
Causes of indeterminate Western Blots include: "lymphoma, multiple sclerosis, injection drug use, liver disease, or autoimmune disorders. Also, there appear to be healthy individuals with antibodies that cross-react...." (Archives of Internal Medicine. August. 2000).

"The Western Blot is not used as a screening tool because...it yields an unacceptably high percentage of indeterminate results." (Archives of Family Medicine. Sept/Oct 2000)

Pregnancy is consistently listed as a cause of positive test results, even by the test manufacturers. "[False positives can be caused by] prior pregnancy, blood transfusions... and other potential nonspecific reactions." (Vironostika HIV Test, 2003).

This is significant in Africa, because HIV estimates for African nations are drawn almost exclusively from testing done on groups of pregnant women.

In Zimbabwe this year, the rate of HIV infection among young women decreased remarkably, from 32.5 to 6 percent. A drop of 81% - overnight. UNICEF’s Swaziland representative, Dr. Alan Brody, told the press "The problems is that all the sero-surveillance data came from pregnant women, and estimates for other demographics was based on that." (PLUS News, August, 2004)

When these pregnant young women are tested, they’re often tested for other illnesses, like syphilis, at the same time. There’s no concern for cross-reactivity or false-positives in this group, and no repeat testing. One ELISA on one girl, and 32.5% of the population is suddenly HIV positive.

The June 20, 2004 Boston Globe reported that "the current estimate of 40 million people living with the AIDS virus worldwide is inflated by 25 percent to 50 percent."

They pointed out that HIV estimates for entire countries have, for over a decade, been taken from "blood samples from pregnant women at prenatal clinics."

But it’s not just HIV estimates that are created from testing pregnant women, it’s "AIDS deaths, AIDS orphans, numbers of people needing antiretroviral treatment, and the average life expectancy," all from that one test.

I’ve certainly never seen this in VH1 ad.

At present there are about 6 dozen reasons given in the literature why the tests come up positive. In fact, the medical literature states that there is simply no way of knowing if any HIV test is truly positive or negative:

"[F]alse-positive reactions have been observed with every single HIV-1 protein, recombinant or authentic." (Clinical Chemistry. 37; 1991). "Thus, it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection." (Medicine International. 1988)

And even if you believe the reaction is not a false positive, "the test does not indicate whether the person currently harbors the virus." (Science. November, 1999).

The test manufacturers state that after the antibody reaction occurs, the tests have to be "interpreted." There is no strict or clear definition of HIV positive or negative. There’s just the antibody reaction. The reaction is colored by an enzyme, and read by a machine called a spectrophotometer.

The machine grades the reactions according to their strength (but not specificity), above and below a cut-off. If you test above the cut-off, you’re positive; if you test below it, you’re negative.
So what determines the all-important cut-off? From The CDC’s instructional material: "Establishing the cutoff value to define a positive test result from a negative one is somewhat arbitrary." (CDC-EIS "Screening For HIV," 2003 )

The University of Vermont Medical School agrees: "Where a cutoff is drawn to determine a diagnostic test result may be somewhat arbitrary….Where would the director of the Blood Bank who is screening donated blood for HIV antibody want to put the cut-off?...Where would an investigator enrolling high-risk patients in a clinical trial for an experimental, potentially toxic antiretroviral draw the cutoff?" (University of Vermont School of Medicine teaching module: Diagnostic Testing for HIV Infection)

A 1995 study comparing four major brands of HIV tests found that they all had different cut-off points, and as a result, gave different test results for the same sample: "[C]ut-off ratios do not correlate for any of the investigated ELISA pairs," and one brand’s cut-off point had "no predictive value" for any other. (INCQS-DSH, Brazil 1995).

I’ve never heard of a person being asked where they would "want to put the cut-off" for determining their HIV test result, or if they felt that testing positive was a "somewhat arbitrary" experience.

In the UK, if you get through two ELISA tests, you’re positive. In America, you get a third and final test to confirm the first two. The test is called the Western Blot. It uses the same proteins, laid out differently. Same proteins, same nonspecific reactions. But this time it’s read as lines on a page, not a color change. Which lines are HIV positive? That depends on where you are, what lab you’re in and what kit they’re using.

The Mayo Clinic reported that "the Western blot method lacks standardization, is cumbersome, and is subjective in interpretation of banding patterns." (Mayo Clinic Procedural. 1988)

A 1988 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 19 different labs, testing one blood sample, got 19 different Western Blot results. (JAMA, 260, 1988)

A 1993 review in Bio/Technology reported that the FDA, the CDC/Department of Defense and the Red Cross all interpret WB’s differently, and further noted, "All the other major USA laboratories for HIV testing have their own criteria." (Bio/Technology, June 1993)

In the early 1990s, perhaps in response to growing discontent in the medical community with the lack of precision of the tests, Roche Laboratories introduced a new genetic test, called Viral Load, based on a technology called PCR. How good is the new genetic marvel?

An early review of the technology in the 1991 Journal of AIDS reported that "a true positive PCR test cannot be distinguished from a false positive." (J.AIDS, 1991)

A 1992 study "identified a disturbingly high rate of nonspecific positivity," saying 18% antibody-negative (under the cut-off) patients tested Viral Load positive. (J. AIDS, 1992)

A 2001 study showed that the tests gave wildly different results from a single blood sample, as well as different results with different test brands. (CDC MMWR. November 16, 2001)

A 2002 African study showed that Viral Load was high in patients who had intestinal worms, but went down when they were treated for the problem. The title of the article really said it all. "Treatment of Intestinal Worms Is Associated With Decreased HIV Plasma Viral Load." (J.AIDS, September, 2002)

Roche laboratories, the company that manufactures the PCR tests, puts this warning on the label:
"The AMPLICOR HIV-1 MONITOR Test….is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection."

But that’s exactly how it is used – to convince pregnant mothers to take AZT and Nevirapine and to urge patients to start the drugs.

The medical literature adds something truly astounding to all of this. It says that reason HIV tests are so non-specific and need to be interpreted is because there is "no virologic gold standard" for HIV tests.

The meaning of this statement, from both the medical and social perspective, is profound. The "virologic gold standard" is the isolated virus that the doctors claim to be identifying, indirectly, with the test.

Antibody tests always have some cross-reaction, because antibodies aren’t specific. The way to validate a test is to go find the virus in the patient’s blood.

You take the blood, spin it in a centrifuge, and you end up with millions of little virus particles, which you can easily photograph under a microscope. You can disassemble the virus, measure the weight of its proteins, and map its genetic structure. That’s the virologic gold standard. And for some reason, HIV tests have none.

In 1986, JAMA reported that: "no established standard exists for identifying HTLV-III [HIV] infection in asymptomatic people." (JAMA. July 18, 1986)

In 1987, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that "The meaning of positive tests will depend on the joint [ELISA/WB] false positive rate. Because we lack a gold standard, we do not know what that rate is now. We cannot know what it will be in a large-scale screening program." ( Screening for HIV: can we afford the false positive rate?. NEJM. 1987)

Skip ahead to 1996; JAMA again reported: "the diagnosis of HIV infection in infants is particularly difficult because there is no reference or ‘gold standard’ test that determines unequivocally the true infection status of the patient. (JAMA. May, 1996)

In 1997, Abbott laboratories, the world leader in HIV test production stated: "At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV antibody in human blood." (Abbot Laboratories HIV Elisa Test 1997)

In 2000 the Journal AIDS reported that "2.9% to 12.3%" of women in a study tested positive, "depending on the test used," but "since there is no established gold standard test, it is unclear which of these two proportions is the best estimate of the real prevalence rate…" (AIDS, 14; 2000).

If we had a virologic gold standard, HIV testing would be easy and accurate. You could spin the patient’s blood in a centrifuge and find the particle. They don’t do this, and they’re saying privately, in the medical journals, that they can’t.

That’s why tests are determined through algorithms – above or below sliding cut-offs; estimated from pregnant girls, then projected and redacted overnight.

By repeating, again and again in the medical literature that there’s no virologic gold standard, the world’s top AIDS researchers are saying that what we’re calling HIV isn’t a single entity, but a collection of cross-reactive proteins and unidentified genetic material.

And we’re suddenly a very long way from the public face of HIV.

But the fact is, you don’t need to test HIV positive to be an AIDS patient. You don’t even have to be sick.

In 1993, the CDC added "Idiopathic CD4 Lymphocytopenia" to the AIDS category. What does it mean? Non-HIV AIDS.

In 1993, the CDC also made "no-illness AIDS" a category. If you tested positive, but weren’t sick, you could be given an AIDS diagnosis. By 1997, the healthy AIDS group accounted for 2/3rds of all US AIDS patients. (That’s also the last year they reported those numbers). (CDC Year-End Edition, 1997)

In Africa, HIV status is irrelevant. Even if you test negative, you can be called an AIDS patient:

From a study in Ghana: "Our attention is now focused on the considerably large number (59%) of the seronegative (HIV-negative) group who were clinically diagnosed as having AIDS. All the patients had three major signs: weight loss, prolonged diarrhea, and chronic fever." (Lancet. October,1992)

And from across Africa: "2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative." (British Medical Journal, 1991)

Non-HIV AIDS, HIV-negative AIDS, No Virologic Gold standard - terms never seen in an HIV ad.
But even if you do test "repeatedly" positive, the manufacturers say that "the risk of an asymptomatic [not sick] person developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known." (Abbott Laboratories HIV Test, 1997)

If commerce laws were applied equally, the "knowing is beautiful" ads for HIV testing would have to bear a disclaimer, just like cigarettes:

"Warning: This test will not tell you if you’re infected with a virus. It may confirm that you are pregnant or have used drugs or alcohol, or that you’ve been vaccinated; that you have a cold, liver disease, arthritis, or are stressed, poor, hungry or tired. Or that you’re African. It will not tell you if you’re going to live or die; in fact, we really don’t know what testing positive, or negative, means at all."

Dear Vetvetdoug,

You are so right about Gallo. Here is what the media said about the man behind the myth:-

The tale of Dr. Robert Gallo’s role in the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS is one of those stories that wouldn’t be believable as fiction...Science Fictions is bursting with allegations leveled at Dr. Gallo, his associates, rivals and enemies, that include deception, misconduct, incompetence, fraud, sabotage, back-stabbing, double-dealing, overstatements, half-truths, outright lies, a clandestine affair with a co-worker, a bribery attempt, denials, evasions, coverups and serial rewritings of history.’
— New York Times

‘
Scrupulously researched and sweeping... Science Fictions documents enough treachery, negligence and megalomania to make even the most trusting of readers skeptical of the scientific establishment.’
— Washington Post

‘
A gripping work with important implications...With incredible tenacity, Crewdson reveals a biological research scandal that was significant, frightening and, most of all, a testament to one reporter’s quest to separate science fact from fiction.’
— Chicago Tribune

‘
Crewdson’s work is the most powerful and revealing since James Watson’s The Double Helix...This is an awesomely documented prosecutorial brief that concedes no credit to its target and yields him no doubts. If the Gallo camp has a rebuttal, let’s hear it.’
— New Scientist

‘
No one knows whether someone in Gallo’s lab stole the French virus or if it contaminated their samples through sloppy practice, and it really doesn’t matter… And as Crewdson shows, the biggest discoveries in Gallo’s career — his claim to have identified the virus that causes AIDS and the patent on the AIDS blood test — both belong to someone else.’
— Baltimore Sun

‘
Robert Gallo’s hour was not the brightest for American science. In fact, it may be one of the darkest. The two-decade-long sequence of events described in John Crewdson’s new book resembles more the actions of a megalomaniac intent more on self-promotion and profit than on a way to stop the AIDS epidemic.’
— San Diego Union-Tribune

‘
I could hardly put the book down out of a mounting realization that this was more than a story about human vanity and political corruption. Science Fictions is ultimately a scientific detective story, with dramatic plot twists, inspired sleuthing, and unlikely heroes. It’s a crime with many victims, and one that is well worth the effort to understand.’
— Washington Monthly

‘
John Crewdson, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, has written a detailed history of the events that led scientists to the cause of AIDS - and it makes unpleasant reading for anyone who thought science was simply about the pursuit of truth. Instead, a picture emerges of deliberate falsehoods, exaggerated claims and denigrating criticism.’
— The Independent (London)

‘
Crewdson’s squalid tale of grasping self-interest in the face of a devastating epidemic is told through court documents, reports from internal NIH and congressional investigative committees and interviews. The enormous amount of evidence which the author has gathered in favor of the French seems convincing.’
— Los Angeles Times

‘
Science Fictions is about scientists behaving very, very badly. Crewdson’s research is thorough, his writing brisk.’
— Edmonton Journal

‘
A compelling case that Gallo claimed and obtained recognition for research that had, in fact, been accomplished by the French...this book is a successful indictment of Gallo, whom history will probably judge to have been guilty of excessive zeal in the pursuit of scientific glory.’
— Montreal Gazette

‘
Was Gallo’s behavior so extreme as to be anomalous, or was it to some extent encouraged by what Crewdson calls a “hypercompetitive” scientific culture? If Science Fictions forces scientists to address these difficult questions — and it should — it will have served its purpose.’
— New York Times Book Review

‘
Science Fictions is a profoundly disturbing account, demonstrating that even brilliant minds may trade truth for fame or fortune...John Crewdson has written a masterpiece.’
— Providence Journal-Bulletin

‘
Comprehensive and compelling...The level of drama here is unprecedented…Crewdson is able to weave a story that is impossible to put down.’
— Publishers Weekly

‘
A meticulous account of slippery science that develops slowly into a panoramic view of the biomedical world.’
— Kirkus Reviews

http://www.sciencefictions.net/

INVESTIGATION OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO THE HIV BLOOD TEST PATENT DISPUTE AND RELATED MATTERS

Staff Report
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce

Highlights of the Executive Summary

I. Use of the Institut Pasteur Virus by Gallo et al.

* "There is no longer any doubt that the IP [Institut Pasteur] scientists were first to isolate the AIDS virus. The LTCB [Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology] scientists eventually did isolate and grow their own AIDS viruses; however, they did not discover the AIDS virus isolate with which they performed all of their seminal experiments. Instead, they performed all of these experiments with the IP virus, first under its own original name ('LAV'), then under two different names -- 'MOV' and 'HTLV-IIIb'" (ref).
* "A substantial body of circumstantial evidence assembled and reviewed during the Subcommitee's investigation shows that at the very inception of their seminal experiments, the LTCB scientists knew or had reason to know that the virus they were working with and claimed as their own was the IP virus. The evidence also shows that within weeks of the announcement of their putative 'discoveries,' the LTCB scientists had additional, compelling evidence that their virus was the IP virus" (ref).
* "... the evidence shows that in the critical closing days of 1983 into early 1984, Gallo/Popovic had one useable virus isolate ... [the IP isolate] which was successively renamed according to the then-existing exigencies, and ultimatedly was patented and claimed as the LTCB's own" (ref).
* "Drs. Gallo and Popovic claim that IIIb, like MOV, was a genuine LTCB isolate, independent of ... [the IP virus]. But the Subcommittee's investigation found that aside from Gallo/Popovic's assertions, there is no evidence to support this claim and there is ample evidence to question it" (ref).
* "... in the first paper in which 'IIIb' did appear, the experiments said to have been performed with IIIb were discovered by Subcommittee staff to have been performed with 'MOV,' i.e., the name of the virus was simply changed" (ref).
* "... when the genetic identity of the IP and LTCB isolates began to emerge as a focus of concern at NCI, public health concerns were subjugated to 'scientific' intrigues, and the public and scientific community were misled about the nature of HIV" (ref).
* "... it is the LTCB scientists' own actions, both at the time they performed their seminal experiments, and even more, within a few weeks of the announcement of those experiments, that make compelling the case that there was something to hide, that the LTCB scientists knew there was something to hide, and that they made every effort to do exactly that" (ref).

II. Gallo's "Other Isolates"

* "Another element of Dr. Gallo's campaign to counter charges of misappropriation of the IP virus was his claim that because he had numerous other HIV isolates, particularly isolates obtained long before the receipt of the IP virus at the LTCB, he had no motive nor need to use the IP virus. Dr. Gallo particularly singled out 'RF' as one isolate that in and of itself eliminated any motive for misappropriation ... There was just one problem: the claims were not true, as Gallo himself admitted to Subcommittee staff" (ref).
* "... there were two major problems with the possible use of RF for the LTCB blood test. First, contrary to Dr. Gallo's repeated assertions, RF was not ready to be used, and there could be no certainty about when it would be ready and (2) there was no time for delay" (ref).

III. Patent Applications of Gallo et al.

* "... HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] submitted applications for U.S. patents on an HIV antibody blood test and a method of producing the virus. These patent applications contained the seeds of the French/American dispute. They contained fundamental assertions that could not be substantiated" (ref).
* "The real inventors of the HIV blood test were the IP scientists, who had developed and begun to use their blood test the previous Summer (1983) ... Dr. Gallo and his colleagues did not disclose to PTO [the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office] their knowledge and use of the IP blood test, nor did they disclose the IP scientists' considerable body of scientific work on their virus and blood test ..." (ref).
* "... no later than the Summer of 1984, Gallo et al. knew that IIIb and LAV were -- at least -- functionally identical and were the cause of AIDS ... No disclosure of any of these results was made by Gallo et al. to PTO ... where the Gallo et al. blood test patent application was being examined" (ref).
* "Both the attorneys and the PTO examiner told Subcommittee staff that numerous aspects of the IP and LTCB work [with the IP virus] were material to the claims of Gallo et al. and should have been disclosed" (ref).
* "The Gallo et al. patent was issued in record time ... At the time the Gallo et al. patent issued, the IP patent application, submittted over four months prior to the submission of the Gallo et al. patent application, had not been touched ... The differential handling of two applications for the same invention has never been satisfactorily explained ..." (ref).
* "According to the examiner, when she first saw the IP application, within two weeks of issuing Gallo et al., she recognized immediately that PTO had 'screwed up' in issuing the Gallo et al. patent" (ref).

IV. Cover-up in the 1980s

* "The HHS response to the IP challenge ... was immediate and reflexive. The response was to defend -- at all costs and irrespective of the evidence -- the claims of Gallo et al. The Subcommittee investigation showed that HHS officials and attorneys conducted a paraody of an investigation; they did not seek the truth, but rather sought to create an official record to support the claims of Gallo et al." (ref).
* "HHS officials accepted uncritically everything they were told by Dr. Gallo and his colleagues, incorporating the LTCB scientists' information unqualifiedly and without confirmation into official reports of the Department. When these officials encountered hard evidence that contradicted the NCI/HHS claims, the evidence was ignored, discarded, and/or suppressed" (ref).
* "DOJ [Department of Justice] attorneys, in turn, took the 'facts' they were given by NCI/HHS and incorporated them, often nearly verbatim, into U.S. Government pleadings in the Claims Court and before the PTO. At the same time, HHS and DOJ sought by every means at their disposal to thwart IP's discovery of evidence that would reveal the truth about the LTCB claims" (ref).
* "... despite top HHS officials' awareness that many of the claims of Gallo et al. were, at best, highly questionable and without substantiation, HHS determined to 'play out' the U.S. defense as long as possible, and 'roll over' only when defeat became inevitable" (ref).
* "The U.S. Government pleadings ... contain numerous misleading claims. They also reflect numerous material omissions. The misinformation and material omissions are traceable directly to documents and statements prepared by Dr. Gallo and his LTCB colleagues ... " (ref).

V. Continuing Cover-up at HHS/NIH

* "... Dr. Bernadine Healy told Chairman Dingell, concerning Dr. Gallo, that she felt she had to 'save Bob' ... Dr. Healy attempted, by every means possible, to fulfill her pledge and at the same time, to save the blood test patent for NIH" (ref).
* "... although the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), the United States Attorney, and the Subcommittee had by this time amassed a substantial body of evidence demonstrating probable misconduct, Dr. Varmus, who was advised throughout by HHS General Counsel Harriett Rabb, refused to forward that evidence to a Surgeon General's Board of Inquiry ..." (ref).
* "... Subcommittee staff briefed the HHS General Counsel about the Subcommittee investigation's findings indicating the strong likelihood of misconduct on the part of HHS scientists, officials, and attorneys. The General Counsel ... told Subcommittee staff she kept Dr. Varmus fully informed about the information provided to her by the staff. Thus, it is difficult to comprehend how Dr. Varmus could have made his strong denials of official misconduct" (ref).
* "... it remains unclear whether Dr. Varmus will support or obstruct Dr. Broder's long-range plans for dealing with the fitness questions raised by the several investigations of Gallo et al." (ref).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.