Retrovirus is the New Black


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)?

Proposition:

The mainstream, with its ‘one size fits all’ and ’till death do you part’ approach with its lousy tests and lousier drugs, is not correct. They are, however, totally and transparently corrupt.

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,

Because…

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.

9 thoughts on “Retrovirus is the New Black

  1. Tell it, Liam.

    Your analysis is consistent with what I learned from reading Janine Roberts’ book and I’ve already ordered the Lamarck’s Signature from the library.

    It does seem likely that the many inconsistencies about HIV will require a scientific revolution… one that isn’t likely to come from virologists.

    The recent hissy-fit between some of the leading thinkers of the AIDS dissidence movement (and I use at least one of those terms loosely) over who has the right answer has grown more than wearisome. I have come to the conclusion that in their pursuit to have the right answer, they have lost sight of asking if they are even asking the right questions.

    Thanks for helping to refocus the debate.

  2. Sorry for the unusual question.

    Can anyone translate these concepts:

    This is from the following (from reference in J. Roberts):

    Higher-Order Oligomerization Targets Plasma Membrane Proteins and HIV Gag to Exosomes

    “These results support the hypothesis that HIV and other retroviruses are generated by a normal, nonviral pathway of exosome biogenesis”

    Thanks,

    Rick

  3. Liam,

    I am a little confused by what you mean. Duesberg is wrong and Perth is wrong, but Perth is right, and Duesberg is right, a little bit? Can you be more specific? And what do you mean by evolution is the important thing?

  4. Hello Thomas!

    I will lay out my evolving worldview for you. Nice of you to ask…

    Duesberg: There is a retroid, we know it because it was cloned somewhere, at some point. “It” is harmless.

    Perth: There is no retroid, nothing, but only the various dozen proteins, and endless PCR clones from stimulated cells. This does not prove the existence of any retroid.

    Liam: I agree with Perth’s analysis in their excellent and durable papers on the initial Gallo and Montagnier experiments. I think they go too far by insisting that everyone agree with them that ‘there is no proof for the existence of ‘HIV.”

    HIV is a name now given to a series of biological processes, which have been re-made and re-capitulated and studied, (to no avail) for 25 years by the gene-chasing stuck-under-the-microscope mainstream.

    HIV is a plural, not a singular. It is a ‘they,’ not wildly mutating retroparticles, but a collection of variable masses and proteins and copied gene samples. This unholy mess IS ‘HIV.’

    This is easily seen by anyone, even the lay person with no interest or experience in researching the field; all one has to do is to read any of the dozen dozen papers on HIV testing, and to witness the immense variety of conditions that these variable proteins are found in.

    Then review the gene sampling – the PCR test results – and find their massive variability written plain and large. The tests are irreproducible. They never produce the same number or quality of copy of DNA. This DNA is called, in AIDS patients, “HIV,” but in anyone else, it would be an unknown sample of a (possibly) conserved area of what has generally been called junk DNA (but which may be the inheritence of the organism’s history of adaptive symbiogenic pairing and co-joining over eons).

    That is, our DNA is a record of a long, long history of the creative, adaptive process generally called (but badly understood in reductionist terms), ‘evolution.’

    No one can tell you what any of those cultured, highly variable gene copies called “viral load” actually DO. Nobody can. They’re sterile cords of base pairs, by the time they’re fished out of the PCR process. There’s nothing living there, nothing real, in terms of the living body.

    But, well…today’s research likes to carve people into endless bits – like Rene Descartes said, we’re just ‘automata,’ nothing but machines, and our cries for pity or mercy are nothing more than the squeaking of wheels.

    That’s our inheritence, and that’s where the AIDS paradigm lives…

    There is, however, a wheel turning at present, and a number of very good rather mainstream researchers, reductionists themselves, are so fed up with the hamstringing nonsense being passed down as ‘absolute truth,’ (from Watson and Crick, and the idiots in Dawkins-ville), that they are rebelling in great style.

    You’ll find the living in the world of “epi-genetics,” “EPI-” being a clever greek prefix, which in this case means, “Yeah, we were really really really waaayy waaaaayy off about that whole ‘central dogma’ stuff. Yeah.. wayyy waaaayy off…”

    EPI = Above, outside. “Outside of genetics.” Beyond the central dogma.

    The central dogma applies to AIDS too, because the AIDS true believers live in the world where we’re supposed to feel great terror because some abstracted idea of base pairs is copyable from non-vocalized (non-activated) DNA.

    Whoop-dee-bloody-doo.

    It’s irrelevant. It’s as irrelevant as genetic tests “for” cancer or “for” diabetes have turned out to be.

    “HIV” as a term will be unravelled, and will come to be seen, in time, I think, as a repository for a great many biological phenomena that will eventually belong to epigenetics.

    If Perth and company could inch past their great truth, and see the coming dawn in genetics and evolutionary studies, they might do themselves more of a favor, than by simply insisting that “there is no proof for the existence of HIV.”

    I understand what they mean, but it’s not enough.

    Hope that answers – my opinion, of course. You’re free to take it to a higher court!

  5. Good work Liam.

    Lots of food for thought and grounds for further investigations.

    However, I strongly object to Mr “Hissy Fit” above, one of the “special victims” who’s “special needs” just haven’t been met because of the dissident guys and their awful love for fighting. “Oh it’s all just so horrible”, he wails

    Does this genius not realize that progress only comes with “hurt feelings” because science is about warfare as any fool can see?

    Personally, I’m in debt to all combatants, Dawkins include, for making the whole thing exciting.

    It’s the way science should be taught, as another form of war. Alas, the participants’ uniforms are “invisible” to the “low information voters”, thanks to mainstream popularizers or “vulgar journalists” on the science beat.

    Your public service has been to describe in clear language the uniforms (schools of thought, ideologies, etc) of the participating armies.

    Keep it up.

  6. Oh and to answer Rick.

    Oligo prefix has the same meaning as oligo in oligarchy.

    The basic unit of any polymer is a monomer or mer. (see textbook, if necessary)

    Oligomers are shorter polymers, coventionally in the range of 20 -30 bases when referring to nucleic acids or “primers” for PCR.

    The components of dimers (two mers) or trimers (three mers) may be high molecular weight long-chain amino acids (proteins) as in “HIV” gp 120 :o)

    When it comes to proteins and “higher orders”, it should be explicit from the paper. It states clearly “oligomers of oligomers”, multiple oligomers bound together and “recognized” as an entity by other biomolecules of the cell.

    I trust this helps.

  7. Correction: AIDS is caused by cellular (oxidative) stress and toxins. It’s an Aquired ENERGY deficiencty syndrome. Nothing to do with genetics and evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *