How Accurate is Reverse Transcription
in the HIV Purification/Isolation Process?

In response to The Emperor's New Virus? Professor Henrik Kibak posted a critique on Facebook (below). His critique was followed with a response from the Perth Group (below).

Henrik Kibak Comments:

“It is true that reverse transcriptase activity is not specific only to retroviruses, but if you have a pcr product demonstrating that the gene and transcript for the viral reverse transcriptase is present, and antibody recognizing the reverse transcriptase itself, then you can't have much better evidence short of purifying reverse transcriptase to homogeneity from the lymphocytes which would probably take a kilogram of starting material.

“Especially at 0:13:49 when the young man says, ”So you're saying that what they found might just be the actual substance they put in a culture and not a virus?“ and she answers ”Definately.“ Well it is clear that there is a language barrier. The young man has no clue what she is saying, and she is just agreeing in order to simplify it for him, thereby giving the wrong impression.

“All human cells have a reverse transcriptase gene, typically only expressed in stem cells in conjunction with the telomerase system. You can sometimes stimulate other cell types to express this gene by adding the lectin PHA to the culture medium. In the case of Montagnier's HIV study they added it for three days and then removed it. By day 15 even though there was no PHA around, they were seeing reverse transcriptase activity in their assays, something that all retroviruses do. Definitely NOT what the young man said. Furthermore you can easily demostrate that it is viral reverse transcriptase and not the endogenous human reverse transcriptase by doing a Northern Blot or pcr as described above.”

The Perth Group's Response to Professor Henrik Kibak

(1) Professor Henrik Kibak agrees with the Perth Group that reverse transcriptases (RT) are not specific to retroviruses and can be found in all cells.  In fact, anyone reading papers published by David Baltimore and Robin Weiss will realise RTs are also present in bacteria cells and even in viruses other than retroviruses.

(2) Anyone familiar with the “HIV” literature, including Montagnier’s work will know that the presence of “HIV” RT is demonstrated by detecting RT activity and not the RT protein or its gene.  Since RT activity is not specific to retroviruses claims that RT activity = isolation of a retrovirus have no scientific basis.  Montagnier did use PHA for 3 days which would have activated the cells and thus induced polymerase activities.  Also his assay for RT was not “combined with a northern Blot and/or pcr product” or antibodies to detect a reverse transcribing enzyme.  The PCR as we know it was not even invented in 1983.

(3) In all the “HIV” literature proof for the existence of “HIV” RT is demonstrated by reverse transcription of the synthetic template-primer An.dT12-15  However, in 1975 an international conference on cellular DNA polymerases defined DNA polymerase γ as the cellular enzyme which “copies A.ndT15 with high efficiency…”.   In other words, the “HIV” RT activity may have nothing to do with a reverse transcriptase, viral or non-viral.

(4) Montagnier’s results proved that his RT activity had nothing to do with “HIV” or any retrovirus:  In Montagnier’s 1983 paper the finding of RT activity in the BRU's cell culture and the co-culture of BRU's cells with cells from a healthy blood donor was considered proof for virus isolation and propagation.  But it appears that even Montagnier was not 100% sure the activity was due to a retrovirus because he added:  “That this new isolate was a retrovirus was further indicated by its density in a sucrose gradient, which was 1.16 [g/ml]”.  In the 1.16 g/ml material he detected RT activity and claimed this was “purified, labelled virus [retrovirus] from patient 1”, BRU.  However, in his 1997 interview with Djamel Tahi he said that the 1.16g/ml material did not contain any particles having any morphological characteristics of retroviruses, much less of this attributed to the “HIV” particles.  This is as good a proof as any that the RT activity which Montagnier claimed as proof for the existence of HIV had nothing to do with a retrovirus.

(5) To refute the claim that PCR can be used to prove that the RT activity is due to the “HIV” enzyme (protein, gene) we can do no better than quote Dominic Dwyer, the foremost Australian “HIV” expert and Montagnier collaborator.

In an Australian legal case (R vs Andre Parenzee 2006/2007)  Dwyer was asked to comment on genetic testing and our claims that no genetic testing can be performed unless one has obtained primers and probes from material proven by EM to contain purified retrovirus-like particles with the morphology attributed to “HIV”  He said:  “I mean with genetic testing- I guess the upside of course is you can do it on everybody, it’s pretty cheap, it’s extremely reliable and robust, the downside is that you have to know the genetic structure to begin with, you have to have the genetic sequences of what you are after.  So when a new virus emerges, like SARS, you can’t necessarily use, reliably, nucleic acid testing until you get the sequence of that new virus for the first time.  So then in fact you are in a first identifier, you are required to use these more traditional methods of virus culture and microscopy and so on”.  This has not been done for “HIV”.

(6) Before one can use an antigen/antibody reaction to prove the existence of an “HIV” RT enzyme (protein) first it is necessary to (a) purify the retroviral particles;  (b) obtain the retroviral proteins;  (c) prove one of the proteins is an RT enzyme; (d) obtain or produce anti-RT antibodies;  (e) prove the reaction between the antibodies and the RT protein is specific.  In order to satisfy (e) it is necessary to show that the anti-RT antibodies do not react with any other proteins except the RT protein.  No such proof exists and indeed cannot be obtained because to date there is no evidence for the purification of “HIV”.