...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
OT: The River [Origin of AIDS]
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supercar: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Willing Thinker: That question about the spread does make you wonder. Especially the connections with homosexuals, in more ways than one. I'm starting to see what Supercar was trying to forebode.[/QUOTE]I don't proclaim to have the answers to "AIDS/HIV" origins, but I do have questions pertaining to theories out there. The methods that went into producing vaccines isn't farfetched as agents of the spread of the disease imo, when considering the timelines of AIDS and its pandemic status, and to that extent, an analytical piece/article was provided. It is falsifiable material, and it is left to challengers to rise to the occasion and address the points made therein. On another note, as it turns out, the same group which re-analyzed the "1959" European male's tissue for "AIDS", was the same one which assessed the blood sample from the male claimed to have been taken from the Congo region around "1959"; they were then appointed by the Company which wanted to clear its name off possible vaccine triggering of HIV/AIDS: "Dr. Williams said he located the tissue samples taken from Mr. Carr in 1987. Unfortunately, there was no test for HIV at the time that was sophisticated enough to use in such dried-out material. (The HIV antibody test was designed to work primarily on blood serum). Then, towards the end of the 1980s, scientists had developed a new technique for amplifying minute quantities of DNA--the genetic blueprint--from all manner of tissue fragments. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test had revolutionised forensic science and was now about to be employed on the mortal remains of David Carr. Dr. Williams sent some samples to Gerald Corbitt, in the hospital's virology unit. Together with his research assistant, Andrew Bailey, Dr. Corbitt applied the PCR test to the tissue and had a positive result: they found that HIV had infiltrated the DNA. Dr. Corbitt, however, wanted to be absolutely sure that this was not a "false positive" result. He was well aware that the PCR test was so sensitive that it could quite easily amplify any stray molecules of HIV that may contaminate the samples, so he asked Dr. Williams to send him some more tissue, but this time in a proper "blind" trial. Dr. Williams therefore sent Dr. Corbitt 12 tissue samples in separate tubes. Six came from David Carr and six from a man of a similar age who had died in a traffic accident in the same year. Neither Dr. Corbitt nor Mr. Bailey knew which sample came from which patient because only Dr. Williams had access to the code describing what each tube contained. Dr. Williams said he kept the code in a locked drawer and no one but himself had seen it. "When I say no one, I mean no one," he told the Independent. The blind experiment went ahead. Mr. Bailey, who did much of the bench work, performed the PCR test on each of the 12 tissue samples. He and Dr. Corbitt went to extraordinary lengths to avoid contamination because they knew how sensitive the PCR test can be. The work was done in a laboratory where, as far as they know, researchers had never handled HIV. As an added precaution, half a dozen different rooms where used for each stage of the experiment and the scientists wore disposable gloves, gowns and hats while working with the samples in an air-filtered hood. They had even asked Dr. Williams to slice sections off the stored tissue blocks using different laboratory knives. Dr. Williams said he also washed the knives in alcohol to make absolutely sure there was no cross-contamination. Mr. Bailey repeated the PCR experiment twice and got the same results each time: four of the tissues were positive for HIV, eight were negative. It was left to Dr. Corbitt to phone over the results to Dr. Williams, who had the code to hand. Dr. Corbitt read the results through "one by one" and was told that the four positives all came from David Carr. Kidney, bone marrow, spleen and throat tissue all had HIV present. Tissue from Carr's brain and liver were negative, as were all the tissue samples from the "negative control". The results surprised Dr. Corbitt because they were better than he ever expected. "An occasional false positive wouldn't come as any great surprise, so to get the correlation of the sort we got did surprise me," he said. With Mr. Bailey and Dr. Williams, he quickly submitted the results of the research to the Lancet, which published them as a short letter on 7 July, 1990. The resulting international publicity was huge. The three researchers, along with Dr. Stretton and Dr. Leonard, were feted on both sides of the Atlantic. The New York Times proclaimed: "Puzzle of sailor's death solved after 31 years: the answer is AIDS." The central reason for the apologetic statement was that the committee of scientists had taken the case of the Manchester seaman into account in its review of Rolling Stone's theory. [b]The scientists--[i]appointed by the Wistar Institute[/i]--said in their report[/b]: "{The Manchester man} had returned to England by the first half of 1957, before the Congo trial was begun. Therefore, it can be stated with almost complete certainty, that the large polio vaccine trial begun in 1957 in Congo was not the origin of AIDS." A Wistar Institute press statement in October 1992 reiterated the importance of the 1959 case: "The most conclusive evidence refuting the origin of AIDS theory involves the earliest documented case of HIV-1 infection--a merchant marine {sic} who was symptomatic in 1958 and died of AIDS in 1959 in Manchester, England. "While this man travelled abroad to northern Africa beginning in 1955, he had returned to England by the first half of 1957, before the Congo trial was begun." However, it was the tenacity of [b]one member of this committee[/b]-- David Ho, director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Centre in New York City and professor of medicine and microbiology at New York University School of Medicine--that has now cast grave doubts over the scientific validity of the case of the Manchester sailor. Professor Ho contacted the Manchester researchers in 1992 to learn more about the man, who had subsequently been named in the Sunday Express. Professor Ho asked for samples to perform PCR tests himself. Manchester University's Gerald Corbitt said that after the Lancet letter of 1990 he and Andrew Bailey had tried to sequence the genetic code of HIV but had only limited success. They had managed to get a partial DNA sequence--enough to know it was HIV-1 and not the other major type of AIDS virus, HIV-2--but had recognised their limitations. "To be perfectly truthful, we are a hospital diagnostic laboratory and we were beginning to get out of our depth," Dr. Corbitt said. Professor Ho's lab, however, was a specialist AIDS centre and was accustomed to performing difficult PCR tests and rapid genetic sequencing. Soon after being sent processed DNA from kidney tissue--which had been left over from the 1990 experiment--Professsor Ho was able to isolate the entire sequence of HIV "with ease". He did this in 1993 and now had the complete virus, from one end of its genetic code to the other. He also found that this genetic sequence was identical to the partial sequence of Corbitt and Bailey--scientific confirmation that it was the same virus isolated earlier by the two Manchester virologists. The sequence, however, began to puzzle Professor Ho following a discussion he had with Gerald Myers, director of the HIV Sequence Database at the US's Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, and a world authority on the genetics of the virus. "Gerry told us his concerns about the possibility that it was a contaminant. All the calculations and analyses Gerry did suggested that it could be a contaminant . . . {The virus} did not make any sense based on everything he has known about them," Professor Ho said. Dr. Myers was well aware from nearly a decade's work on the AIDS virus that it is one of the fastest evolving life-forms. Its speed of change is dramatic. He estimated the strains of HIV circulating in the world alter their DNA sequence by about 1 per cent per year. This would mean the "1959 virus"--which presumably must have infected Carr years earlier--should have differed from 1990 strains by 30 per cent or more. The essential problem Dr. Myers had identified is that the virus supposedly dating back to 1959 was to all intents and purposes identical to strains of HIV circulating in North America and Europe in 1990. "You couldn't distinguish it from a 1990 virus," Professor Ho said. Dr. Myers dismissed the 1959 virus as an "aberration". Further evidence suggested that if this was a 1990 contaminant, it was no ordinary contaminant. For a start, Professor Ho had identified "quasi-species" of HIV in the initial samples sent from Manchester. This means the virus he had detected was present as swarms of slightly different forms, indicating it was a genuine HIV infection with multiple copies of actively replicating virus. It could not be a one-off contamination. Secondly, any accidental PCR contamination would be unlikely to result in an entire virus ending up in experimental material. Professor Ho was able to sequence the complete virus, which could only mean one of two things: either a complete clone of HIV had somehow got into the tissue sample or the tissue was genuinely infected with the virus. The former is most unlikely, he said, because few laboratories use HIV clones (and Dr. Corbitt's lab is not one of them) and in any case all sequences of such clones are known, and the sequence he determined was not from any known HIV clone in the world. This left the New York scientists with an uncomfortable conclusion. "Given what we've done now in the past few months we would think the initial sequence was incorrect or there's been a sample mix-up . . . We even discussed wild ideas that someone intentionally provided us with a sample that just came from a contemporary AIDS patient," Professor Ho said. In summary, he concluded that the initial sample of genetic material from kidney tissue sent from Manchester was genuinely infected with HIV but that this virus was disturbingly similar to 1990 strains. He faxed a note to Dr. Corbitt in January 1994 saying how he was "greatly troubled" by the sequence. Professor Ho was so concerned that he decided to ask the Manchester researchers for the actual tissue samples themselves, rather than processed DNA supposedly derived from them, to see for himself whether they contained HIV. After several months delay, in February 1994, he received a set of nine tissue batches from Dr. Williams and Dr. Corbitt. Each was embedded in their original paraffin blocks. After an exhaustive series of tests using the most sensitive PCR tests available, however, he failed to find any evidence of HIV infection in any of the tissues, including kidney, throat, liver, heart, bone marrow, brain and pancreas. As a final check, Professor Ho employed a sophisticated DNA test to see whether this set of tissues all came from the same person--they did. However, when he compared them against the DNA sent to him earlier, he was shocked to discover that this HIV-positive tissue was from another person. Furthermore, the size of fragments of a gene the scientists used as another check on their PCR technology indicated the two sets of samples from Manchester were from tissues of significantly different ages. The HIV-positive tissue generated large gene fragments, a clear indication it was recent tissue, whereas the second batch of HIV-negative tissue produced small fragments, showing the DNA had degraded, as it does in older tissue. Everything pointed to the positive batch coming from a 1990 AIDS patient. The 1990 Lancet research had therefore failed the ultimate scientific test of its validity: replication by other scientists. It will now have to be retracted. The tissues of David Carr appear after all to have been HIV negative and his fatal illness the result of another, unexplained cause. [b]Mr. Carr's condition remains as much a mystery today as it was in 1959.[/b]" Source: http://www.aegis.com/news/misc/1995/IN950301.html Interestingly the European male was determined to have died from the symptoms akin to those of AIDS, and initially tested postive. This was later on deemed not to be the case, but that the positive result was due to 'misplacement' of tissues in the lab. Even though the character of symptoms that this person suffered from are known, it is now proclaimed that his death remains a mystery. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3