[Firestarter]

Papadopulos-Eleopulos

Here’s a summary of an article and interview by important AIDS-whistleblower Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos with important evidence that HIV isn’t the cause of AIDS.

In this paper Papadopulos-Eleopulos concludes that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. To make reading a little easier first (this paper is not an easy read) a translation for 2 of the “scientific” words: “HTLV- III” is another name for HIV. “T4 cells” are the T-cells that according to the official story are destroyed by HIV (T8-cells aren’t effected by HIV).

In 1985, Gallo and his colleagues (Gallo et al., 1985) showed that in mitogenically stimulated lymphocyte cultures from AIDS patients or in cultures from healthy donors "infected" with HIV, there is a decrease in the total number of viable cells. However:
(i) the decrease in viable cells begins before a significant increase in reverse transcriptase activity (RT), that is, HIV expression;
(ii) the rate of cell loss remains the same even when the expression of HIV (RT), is maximum
(…)

According to Claude Ameisen and André Capron from the Pasteur Institute, not one of the mechanisms "proposed to account for these TH-cell defects, including: (1) immune suppression, or its opposite, hyperactivation and exhaustion of the TH cells, (2) inhibitory signals mediated by HIV viral or regulatory gene products, (3) autoimmune responses, (4) selective infection and destruction of memory TH cells, (5) syncytia formation between infected and uninfected cells, and (6) inappropriate immune killing of uninfected cells", is satisfactory
(…)

At present it is also known that:
(a) for the expression of HIV phenomena (RT, virus-like particles, antigen/antibody reactions), activation (mitogenic stimulation) is a necessary requirement (Klatzmann & Montagnier, 1986; Ameisen & Capron, 1991; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b);
(b) activation (stimulation) is induced by oxidation (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1982; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b);
Since both AIDS cultures and AIDS patients are exposed to mitogens (activating agents), all of which are oxidising agents (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988), both apoptosis and the phenomena upon which the presence of HIV is based (viral-like particles, RT, antigen/antibody reactions (WB), "HIV-PCR- hybridisation"), may all be the direct result of oxidative stress and therefore their specificity questionable (Papadopulos-Eleopulos, 1988; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992a; Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al., 1992b).
As far back as January 1985 Montagnier wrote, "....replication and cytopathic effect of LAV can only be observed in activated T4 cells
(…)

In considering the data from haemophiliacs, a group of British researchers, including the well known retrovirologist Robin Weiss, concluded in 1985: "We have thus been able to compare lymphocyte subset data before and after infection with HTLV- III. It is commonly assumed that the reduction in T-helper- cell numbers is a result of the HTLV-III virus being tropic for T-helper-cells. Our finding in this study that T-helper- cell numbers and the helper/suppressor ratio did not change after infection supports our previous conclusion that the abnormal T-lymphocyte subsets are a result of the intravenous infusion of factor VIII concentrates per se, not HTLV-III infection" (Ludlam et al., 1985)
(…)

one must conclude that:
(a) the decrease in the T4 cell numbers and increase in T8 cell numbers in "HIV infected" cultures and individuals is due to agents other than HIV; HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient for the induction of the above phenomenon;
(b) in vivo the above changes may not be due to a selective destruction of T4 cells and increased proliferation of T8 cells, but loss of T4 surface markers and acquisition of T8 surface markers

Papadopulos-Eleopulos et al. – “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HIV-T4-CELL-AIDS HYPOTHESIS” (1995): http://www.sidasante.com/themes/cd4/ept4cells.htm


The following interview of Papadopulos-Eleopulos (EPE) by Johnson (CJ) from 1997 is even more extreme. It comes to 4 conclusions that are bizarre if you’re a believer in the state propaganda on AIDS.
It’s better readable than the previous paper...

1 - HIV isn’t a virus at all.

Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of a few particles which they claimed are a retrovirus and are HIV. But photographs don’t prove particles are a virus and the existence of HIV was not proven using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding but for some unknown reason they did not publish any EMs of the material at 1.16 gm/ml which they and everyone afterwards call "pure HIV".
There are a few particles which the researchers claim are retroviral particles. In fact, they claim these are the HIV particles but give no evidence why. The band should contain billions and when you take an electron micrograph they should fill the entire picture. They bear only the vaguest resemblance to retroviral particles.
Let me repeat, there is no question of isolation. Gallo did not isolate a virus. There were no electron microscope pictures of a banded specimen that one would expect to show nothing but retroviral particles.

2 – HIV cannot be a retrovirus because it’s too large and doesn’t have knobs.

Retroviruses are incredibly tiny, almost spherical particles that have an outer envelope covered with knobs and an inner core consisting of some proteins and RNA.
All the AIDS experts agree that the knobs are absolutely essential for the HIV particle to lock on to a cell. As the first step in infecting that cell. So, no locking on, no infection. The experts all claim that the knobs contain a protein called gp120 which is the hook in the knobs that grabs hold of the surface of the cell it’s about to infect.(14) If HIV particles do not have knobs how is HIV able to replicate? And if it can't replicate, HIV is not an infectious particle.
Gallo and all other retrovirologists, as well as Hans Gelderblom who has done most of the electron microscopy studies of HIV, agree that retrovirus particles are almost spherical in shape, have a diameter of 100-120 nanometres and are covered with knobs.(12,13) The particles the two groups claim are HIV are not spherical, no diameter is less than 120nM, in fact many of them have major diameters exceeding twice that permitted for a retrovirus. And none of them appear to have knobs.

3 – The CDC uses a subjective definition for AIDS.

In fact, according to the CDC AIDS definition, you don’t even need to be HIV infected to be diagnosed as AIDS. That’s what I mean about being subjective. It’s like a physician seeing a patient with fever, diarrhoea, vomiting, weakness and shock and then declaring the cause is cholera. Sure it might be cholera but what about the dozens of other germs that cause a similar pattern?

4 – Haemophiliacs can’t be infected with HIV by donor blood.

CJ: I must confess I find it very hard to accept that haemophiliacs have not been infected through contaminated clotting concentrates. And I bet haemophiliacs do too.
EPE: Tell me this. If someone HIV positive is cut and bleeds how long does the blood remain infectious? Outside the body?
CJ: According to what I’ve read, for only a few hours at the most.
EPE: How is factor VIII made? All right I’ll tell you. It comes as a dry, flaky, yellowish powder and by the time it’s used it’s at least a couple of months old. Do you see the problem?
CJ: I do. If it’s dry and that old any HIV in it should be long dead.

Interview Papadopulos-Eleopulos (EPE) by Johnson (CJ) in 1997: http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html


I add - which isn’t mentioned in the interview with Papadopulos-Eleopulos - that there is not one shred of evidence that HIV-antibodies exist (HIV isn’t even a virus!).