|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > October 2005 > Isolation of HIV
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
| DavidT 2005-10-11, 11:00 am |
| Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be
acceptable methods in some quarters.
These people live in a strange time warp, where only techniques used in
the 1970s exist, and even then only in theory.
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-11, 11:00 am |
| On 11 Oct 2005 05:37:03 -0700, "DavidT" <david199@volcanomail.com>
wrote:
>Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be
>acceptable methods in some quarters.
I know...
>These people live in a strange time warp, where only techniques used in
>the 1970s exist, and even then only in theory.
And the funny thing is one of the isolation techniques that they
insist is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise
Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1).
George M. Carter
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-16, 12:49 am |
| >"Unfortunately George, modern virological methods are not deemed to be
acceptable methods in some quarters."
You have a point there, Master David. What you call "modern virological
methods" are so unbelievably sloppy and off-the-wall that I feel like
crying sometimes.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-16, 12:49 am |
| >"And the funny thing is one of the isolation techniques that they insist
is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise
Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1)"
Really, Mr. Carter! We've been pretty tolerant lately, but this lie is
going too far. We were isolating viruses in a proper way (by
density-gradient centrifugation) when Françoise was still in diapers.
Wen will "modern virologists" finally learn that a string of nucleotides
plus some enzymatic activity from the other crap in a cell culture does
not a virus make?
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-16, 10:49 am |
| On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:12:41 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>is gold standard was developed by none other than Francoise
>Barre-Sinoussi, the discoverer of LAV (later HIV-1)"
>
>Really, Mr. Carter! We've been pretty tolerant lately, but this lie is
>going too far.
YOU? Claiming something is a LIE????
What a joke.
The paper often cited by denialists as the current gold standard is
from the 70s (I know, past 1938) and Barre-Sinoussi is one of the
authors.
So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-16, 10:49 am |
| On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:07:09 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>acceptable methods in some quarters."
>
>You have a point there, Master David. What you call "modern virological
>methods" are so unbelievably sloppy and off-the-wall that I feel like
>crying sometimes.
Try retiring instead.
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-16, 10:49 am |
| On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 21:53:36 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>Nice try, Mr. Carter, but no cigar.
>
>The first paper (or should I say Indusrial brochure) looks promising. But
>"Elution Method A just yields a lysate, where no HIV comes out, but stuff
>that can be measured with the usual immunoassay and viral load horseshit.
Right...your inestimable opinion. That is, hard to estimate how much
lower than whale shit it can be?
So, darling, your turn. What's your standard reference for viral
isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the
question.
George M. Carter
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| >"So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?"
<Groannn!!> Are you in any way implying that the noble art of isolating
viruses originated with the baby boomers? (they didn't even invent the
term "rock 'n roll")
Real scientists have been isolating viruses since the beginning of the
20th century. The proper method (the "gold standard") is not the most
important part. What's crucial is the requirement that you end up with a
real virus: Whole particles, free from cellular crap. And for "HIV"...
that's an illusion.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| >"Try retiring instead."
But I did! All this clumsy muddling of the "AIDS scientists" has forced
me out of retirement again.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| >"So, darling, your turn. What's your standard reference for viral
isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the
question."
No need to dodge. But if you want an intelligent answer, you have to ask
an intelligent question first.
ONE standard reference? How about hundreds? Virus isolation has been
around for so long that it has become textbook stuff. In the 2nd volume
of "Methods in Virology", edited by Maramorosch and Koprowski (Acad. Press
1967) there are several chapters by Myron Brakke and by Anderson and Cline
presenting numerous methods using centrifugational and other techniques.
There are even continuous flow methods using special centrifuges, for
production runs. There is ample coverage of the various problems one can
encounter. And the purity of the product is the central issue. Must the
final purity be optimized for electron microscopy? Or for serological
tests? Just follow the cook book. Original references? There are many.
Look Mr. Carter, if there really had been a virus to be found, Montagnier
and/or Gallo would have found it. The techniques for isolation have been
that well developed over a long period of time.
These were well-trained biochemists (Montagnier is my age), and they found
nothing. So there WAS nothing.
| |
| DavidT 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| "So--what paper do you cite as the gold standard for viral isolation?"
Care to answer the question now?
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:28:18 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>
><Groannn!!> Are you in any way implying that the noble art of isolating
>viruses originated with the baby boomers? (they didn't even invent the
>term "rock 'n roll")
Certainly not. I asked a question about what you consider necessary
for viral isolation.
>Real scientists have been isolating viruses since the beginning of the
>20th century. The proper method (the "gold standard") is not the most
>important part. What's crucial is the requirement that you end up with a
>real virus: Whole particles, free from cellular crap. And for "HIV"...
>that's an illusion.
Well, that's not a substantive answer. It is your opinion which I
don't credit for much.
George M. Carter
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:01:29 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>isolation? This should be interesting...but I bet you dodge the
>question."
>
>No need to dodge. But if you want an intelligent answer, you have to ask
>an intelligent question first.
>ONE standard reference? How about hundreds?
LOL! What a XXXXing joke. The big squeal on here from denialists was
"show me the ONE PAPER that proves HIV causes AIDS." Feh.
XXXXing hypocrite.
> Virus isolation has been
>around for so long that it has become textbook stuff. In the 2nd volume
>of "Methods in Virology", edited by Maramorosch and Koprowski (Acad. Press
>1967) there are several chapters by Myron Brakke and by Anderson and Cline
>presenting numerous methods using centrifugational and other techniques.
Yes. There are several techniques for viral isolation. Thank you for
the reference.
>There are even continuous flow methods using special centrifuges, for
>production runs. There is ample coverage of the various problems one can
>encounter. And the purity of the product is the central issue. Must the
>final purity be optimized for electron microscopy? Or for serological
>tests? Just follow the cook book. Original references? There are many.
>Look Mr. Carter, if there really had been a virus to be found, Montagnier
>and/or Gallo would have found it. The techniques for isolation have been
>that well developed over a long period of time.
Turns out they did!
>These were well-trained biochemists (Montagnier is my age), and they found
>nothing. So there WAS nothing.
Ah--that's not correct. Montagnier et al. found LAV, later renamed
HIV-1.
George M. Carter
| |
| j.umber@ac-nancy-metz.fr 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| But no to satisfaction of biochemists!
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-20, 5:53 pm |
| On 19 Oct 2005 04:35:10 -0700, j.umber@ac-nancy-metz.fr wrote:
>But no to satisfaction of biochemists!
Who?
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| >"Ah--that's not correct. Montagnier et al. found LAV, later renamed
HIV-1."
Oh, don't keep on repeating that lie, Mr. Carter. I'm sure you know that
interview where Montagnier admitted that they had seen particles, but they
did not fit the size and shape of a retrovirus. All they really found was
a cellular slop with reverse transcriptase activity.
And yes, we're still asking for ONE paper describing a valid isolation of
HIV.
I told you there are (at least) hundreds of papers about the isolation of
other viruses. A lot of them can be found in the textbook I cited. Too
much work to list them all here. And you would have to go to the library
anyway.
| |
| Iconoclaster 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| >"HIV has been isolated to the satisfaction of virologists. Just because
you choose to think otherwise, it does not make the virus disappear"
Then these "virologists" must be crooks or imbeciles. A virus is a virus.
And don't try to pass off a string of nucleotides or some cell juice with
enzymatic activity as a virus. It's just not credible. Not even to
someone without any scientific training.
So... How ABOUT that one paper showing the isolation of HIV?
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-24, 12:55 am |
| On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:50:56 -0400, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:
>And yes, we're still asking for ONE paper describing a valid isolation of
>HIV.
What do you consider "valid"?
>I told you there are (at least) hundreds of papers about the isolation of
>other viruses.
LOL. Yes. You're a hypocrite and full of so much crap you need a Q Tip
to clean yer ears.
|
| |
|
|