Retrovirus is the New Black
by Liam Scheff.
Question: What is HIV, and who is more correct, Dr. Peter Duesberg, or the Perth Group (or the mainstream)?
Dr. Duesberg gets it right on AZT (it’s too toxic for use), and on the idea that HIV is not a pathogenic particle per se, but gets it wrong in identifying “HIV” as “a” particle, or “a” retrovirus. Why is he wrong? Because, as anyone can witness by reviewing the HIV genome databank, “HIV” is actually a name now given to disparate, separable biological/cellular microscopic phenomena, the various proteins and variable areas of strands of embedded DNA culled from experiments, that are, for show purposes stitched together – according to Duesberg’s retroviral model!
The Perth Group gets it right on HIV in the sense that “HIV” as a term used in Gallo and Montagnier’s experiments, does not represent a uniform particle, but rather a collection of fragments, proteins, variable in size and nature, with wide and non-specific affinities for antibodies produced in a dozen dozen diseases and conditions; Perth gets it wrong in saying that “There is no proof for the existence of HIV,”
What is taken as proof is this multiplicity of effects and phenomena just stated above.
The difference is more than semantic, because “HIV” in real-world usage refers to a “they” rather than an “it.”
How is this useful?
It is useful in that the current trail-blazing trend in evolutionary biology makes use of the following for its front line soldier/messenger:
RNA strands and reverse transcriptase processes.
Retrovirus, that is, and/or related particles and/or functions: Retroids, transposons, retrotransposons, retroviruses, retroviral-like particles, HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses)…the list goes on and on.
Evolutionary biology is close to falling into a total academic bloodbath revolt (and I for one couldn’t be more delighted) over the findings that evolution is an active feedback-driven process based on tangible and (more and more) measurable mechanical processes, from the outside – environment – to the inside – DNA and ‘germ line’ or reproductive cells (sperm and/or egg).
That’s the central dogma of Watson and Crick (and Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and the neo-Darwinists) being publicly kicked, flushed, beaten, lacerated, and lashed with a glee earned by them for their own bad behavior, and most especially for the bilious, ruinous vengeance with which these kings of sci-religion have met any opposition with for decades upon decades.
The table is turned, and there is an opportunity to laugh at the ‘blind watchmaking’ fundamentalist-reductionists in the evolution camp (where the world is an “accident” and all genes are “gangsters” waiting to destroy us, or our neighbors). But it’s also a grand opening to ask the AIDS mainstream, “Where is your one and only ‘HIV’ that can never be pinned down, but in reality, does looks acts feels and moves just like the rest of these emissaries of evolutionary adaptation?”
Perth gets it wrong by stopping and waiting for the world to congratulate them for being so damned smart. (They were smart, the world didn’t appreciate their wisdom. The world has moved on, and the science did not stop at “Nothing.”)
We’re now in the world of ‘retrovirus’ as markers and mechanisms for evolutionary change, in the Neo-Lamarckian worldview.
Kicking it your way. I’ll be reading and writing about it.
PS. Add this to your reading list, if you have the time and energy – Lamarck’s Signature, by researchers Steele, Lindley and Blandon.