HIV/AIDS "Rethinker" Valendar Turner speaks his mind

My good friend Snout asked me to host the full text of this email from Val Turner earlier this year to a select group of other "HIV/AIDS Rethinkers".

Originally it was reproduced in full on the splendid weblog "Reckless Endangerment", but Snout felt that it was too tedious to quote in full on his own blog, and so I've offered to archive it here for the edification of those interested, in particular for students of the history of meltdowns in societies of nutcase cranks.

"Etienne, in your e-mail dated 27th of April, you said that our response to Chris Black “contains a number of highly questionable, or totally erroneous statements that must be corrected urgently and distributed to all involved”. In particular, you say “I can clearly indicate that your [the PG] statement according to which “…the vast majority, if not all members of the RA executive believe there is a viral agent” is radically false”. If this is the case would you please indicate which other members of the RA Board of Directors have published scientific evidence, or any evidence or have just stated that, in the HIV/AIDS literature, there is no evidence for “a viral agent”? (Janine, since you also think our statement is wrong, we address the same question to you. Please note: Chris was talking about “a viral agent”, not “HIV”).

On one hand Etienne you say that our statement is “radically false” while on the other you state: “The Fig 2 of the Barré-Sinoussi et al.1983 paper in “Science” shows budding retroviruses on the surface of cord blood (placenta) lymphocytes that were admixed in their cell cultures. To ignore or dodge this fact is objectively and scientifically not acceptable. However, the problem is not in the factual EM observation. The problem resides in its interpretation. Barré-Sinoussi et al., in their historic 1983 paper, totally failed to demonstrate that these retroviral particles originated, as they claimed, from an AIDS patient. Therefore, that EM Fig 2 fails to demonstrate the existence of a so-called “HIV”. That picture most likely demonstrates that cultured human, embryonal (placenta) cells, when highly stimulated in culture by growth factors, may express endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), well known since the classic publication of Sandra Panem in the late 70s for being particularly abundant in the human placenta”. In other words Montagnier had a “viral agent”.

Montagnier never had an “admixed” “mixed cell culture” of cord blood lymphocytes with others cells. As the caption to Figure 2 states, the culture contained only cord blood lymphocytes. He never claimed the “budding retroviruses” were on anything else but cord blood lymphocytes.

Etienne, since you became a dissident you have tried to convince as many dissidents as possible that we are wrong about including, among other things, the interpretation of the 1983 Montagnier paper. You claim that you have done a proper analysis of the Montagnier paper and have come to the correct conclusion.

You wrote to one dissident: “Back to Eleni! You are right: she frequently said and wrote that whatever the Pasteur group had in 1983 it could not be a retrovirus! But she is wrong on that! Fig 2, in this 1983 paper shows TYPICAL retroviruses budding on the surface of a lymphocyte. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Anybody with an “EM eye” will agree with me on that. These particles ARE RETROVIRUSES!”.

Etienne, you are contradicting yourself. In your interview with Paul Philpott, published in Reappraising AIDS November/December 1998 you stated: “everything that looks like a retrovirus is not necessarily a retrovirus, and everything that looks like a retroviral isolate is not necessarily a retroviral isolate”. (It is true that when we pointed out to you it was a pity you forgot to mention that most of what you say there was already in scientific publications, you blamed Paul. “He puts in my mouth definite ideas I never had and final statements I never made!”.

You wrote to the dissident: “again, my key point is: (1) the human placenta is loaded with the HERVs, 2) lymphocytes from the umbilical cord blood therefore are very likely to carry the same HERVs, 3) such lymphocytes were added to the mixed cell cultures, at Pasteur in 1983, 4) the EM picture in the 1983 paper simply demonstrates that, under PHA and TCGF stimulation, these placental lymphocytes express by “budding” their HERVs, 5) this observation has nothing to do with the inoculum from an AIDS patient and is no proof of the exogenous infection of these lymphocytes by hypothetical retroviruses originating from the AIDS patient. If you can show me that Eleni presented an identical analysis, feel sure I shall be very glad to write to her immediately!!”.

When the dissident presented to you quotes from our scientific publications, which demonstrated “that Eleni presented an identical analysis”, but we came to a different conclusion, you did not respond to the dissident or to us.

We have given you evidence that not only us but all retrovirologists including Robert Gallo, in court, under oath, admit no proof exists for the existence of endogenous retroviruses. Even this does not seemed to have made moderated your opinion on this matter. It is true that just because there is a general agreement there is no evidence that proves the existence of endogenous retroviruses, this does not mean they do not exist. However, if you think they do exist please give us the proof.

We wrote: “Moreover, RA was never made up of two groups, “the Duesberg group and the Perth group” as suggested by Christopher Black”. This is true. At its inaugural meeting the first thing the Board of Directors did was to get rid of the Perth Group by an unanimous vote. Yet, we are told that you put out press releases in the name of several people including Eleni, and even more incredible, that you are all the co-founders of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis. All one has to do to see the enormous difference between the original Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis and your Rethinking AIDS group is read the former’s monthly publication entitled Reappraising AIDS. The publication was about science, both orthodox and dissident. More importantly it was about the different scientific views the dissidents held and which were openly debated. It appears that some of the members of Rethinking AIDS are prepared to sacrifice scientific debate for the sake of unity.

You wrote: “Val and Eleni amalgamate Peter with the CIA! This is unacceptably insulting for Peter for whom we all share an enormous admiration and respect”. All we can say is please read the email again. We hope others share our extreme annoyance of this vexatious comment.

You write: “If heterosexual sex had something to do with the transmission of AIDS, could Val and Eleni explain to us how they understand the established epidemiological fact that prostitutes have no AIDS? (find some references in pages 160 and 161 of my book with J-Cl Roussez)”.

First, if you read our publications you will realise we knew long before you published your book “that prostitutes have no AIDS”. In fact we predicted this will be the case at the beginning of the AIDS era. Second and most importantly, we have never said that heterosexual sex or any “sex had something to do with transmission of AIDS”. To the contrary, you seem to be unaware of our scientific claims and our supporting evidence. In fact you seem to be unaware of the scientific facts established more than 25 years ago in regard to sex and AIDS.

As we said to David Crowe, how is it possible for the dissidents who belong to the group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis to expect their efforts and sacrifices to bear fruit when the people who claim to represent them and talk on their behalf are ignorant of scientific facts, or for personal or other reasons choose to ignore them?

Mike, you said that we misinterpreted David Rasnick’s email. We more than anybody else would like this to be true. It would mean that in his view, HIV has not been proven to exist.

However, since:

(a) we never read or heard David expressing such a view;

(b) David has been Peter’s collaborator and one of this best supporters for some time now;

(c) David declined an offer for Anthony Brink to present evidence which questions the existence of HIV at the forth coming RA meeting;

we doubt it.

Henry, you wrote: “I support in the strongest possible terms the plea that we concentrate on what unites us and ignore, as far as possible and for the time being, issues on which we hold differing views”.

It is about time we stop pretending to be united and, in the name of unity, use arguments against the HIV theory which lead us nowhere. Everybody knows that we are not united.

For example,

“Snout, 2009-05-01 18:54:01 [Bay Windows]

And like Allen, I demand public debates on these issue too. I want to see Duesberg debate the Perthians on whether HIV exists, and I won’t be satisfied until they end up agreeing with each other. I want to see a debate between those who claim AIDS cannot be the result of a sexually transmissible infection and those who claim it’s really untreated syphilis”.

You wrote: “I implore the Perth group, who have published such vital material and done such sterling work, to clarify for us what it is that they believe to be specific issues that need to be resolved and that are more important than presenting a united front against the HIV causes AIDS dogma”.

As the HIV protagonists (Snout) stated the most important specific issue which needs to be resolved is the existence of HIV. Nearly 10 years ago, Paul Philpott, the editor of Rethinking AIDS, said: “I think the points that most effectively refute the HIV model have not been taken up as the principal weapons of our most visible advocates”. Nothing has changed since then. Please read The Final Act.