Aller au contenu
forum sidasante
rebayima

Origine du sida - LES ANCIENNES PUBLICATIONS N ETAIENT PAS ENCORE VERO

Recommended Posts

Med Hypotheses. 1993 Oct;41(4):289-99.

The origin of HIV-1, the AIDS virus.

Siefkes D.

Abstract

This article proposes a series of experiments to determine if cows and sheep could be used as animal models for HIV-1, the AIDS virus. To justify this effort, a substantial case is presented that HIV-1 is a natural recombinant of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) and Visna Virus. This natural recombinant may have been inadvertently transferred to humans through the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Program conducted in sub-Saharan Africa in the late 1960s and most of the 1970s.

PIP:

HIV-1 is a natural recombinant of Bovine Leukemia Virus (BLV) and Visna Virus. The author posits that this recombinant virus may have been transferred to humans through the Intensified Smallpox Eradication Program conducted in sub-Sahara Africa in the late 1960s and most of the 1970s. If this is the case, knowledge thereof could help in the search for a cure or vaccine against AIDS. The paper discusses the correlation between the distribution of AIDS cases worldwide and the vaccination program which eradicated smallpox; offers facts about BLV, Visna, HIV-1, and the recombination of retrovirus genomes; and describes a series of experiments to determine if cows and sheep could be used as animal models for research into HIV-1. Weak points of the theory are also presented, such as why AIDS has appeared only recently even though the same method of vaccinating against smallpox has been used for almost 200 years.

PMID: 8289690 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE ALORS OU TROUVER LA MULTITHERAPIE CONTRE L ANTIGENE BLV+VISNA QUI A PRIORI A HERITE DES DOMMAGES DE BLV ET CEUX DU VISNA SANS OUBLIER QUE CET ANTIGENE A PU CREER SES PROPRES DEGATS???

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Message supprimé pour cause de doublons.

Modifié par Jibrail

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
publications pas encore verouillées par les orthodoxes du vih = sida

Medical Hypotheses était un journal scientifique d'un type particulier qui ne soumettait pas strictement ses publications à la règle du peer-review, justement pour faire émerger des idées moins convenues, comme le souligne justement son titre (des hypothèses un peu spéculatives). Le Perth Group y a également publié, et notamment un de ses articles séminaux, en 1988 (Reappraisal of Aids:Is the Oxidation Induced by the Risk Factors the Primary Cause?).

La revue, qui bénéficiait auparavant d'un éditeur indépendant, a été repris en 2002 par le groupe néerlandais ELSEVIER, poids lourds des publications scientifiques (2000 titres !), spécialisée dans le coût exorbitant de ses revues (aucun article ELSEVIER n'est disponible en libre accès), avec une telle morgue que même Harvard a dû contester les prix scandaleux pratiqués.

Il ne faut donc plus s'attendre à que ce type d'article refleurisse dans Medical Hypotheses (deux articles de Duesberg et Ruggiero en 2009 - à mon sens pas bien bons, c'est bien le problème - avaient conduit à une bronca de l'orthodoxie qui a conduit à l'annulation pure et simple de ces deux articles et à la mise au pas du fonctionnement de la revue, voir par exemple ici). Les chiens sont mieux gardés...

Cela dit, concernant l'article sur le lien avec le vaccin contre la variole (l'article n'est cependant pas accessible évidemment...), je n'y crois pas plus que ça, du moins pas comme facteur déterminant même si cela a pu jouer chez certains. Dans les études épidémiologiques récentes en Afrique (par exemple sur l'efficacité du gel vaginal microbicide) montrent qu'un taux très élevé de jeunes femmes par exemple continuent à avoir un résultat positif au test, bien qu'étant nées après, voire longtemps après les dernières campagnes de vaccination.

Modifié par Jibrail

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

pour Jibrail, la transmission que je nomme secondaire existe toujours, ces jeunes africaines même nées après les vaccinations, sont biensur concernées.

un exemple : vous contaminez volontairement un groupe de mineurs de tuberculose en répandant le bacille dans leur home ou dans les mines. ils contamineront d'autres personnes par d'autres voies que la voie initiale d'origine. après vous direz que la contamination volontaire n'était pas possible pcq d'autres gens non mineurs ou ne fréquentant pas la mine ont été contaminées ?!!!

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

toujours Jibrail,

l'article dont vous donnez le lien n'apporte pas une preuve scientifique qui contredirait les travaux de duesberg, seulement les avis personnels de ce monsieur notturno, comme il y a danger sur le travail de prévention déjà fait, etc.... il ne dit pas en quoi duesberg s'est trompé!! c'est plus littérature que science tout de même!!!

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
l'article dont vous donnez le lien n'apporte pas une preuve scientifique qui contredirait les travaux de duesberg, seulement les avis personnels de ce monsieur notturno, comme il y a danger sur le travail de prévention déjà fait, etc.... il ne dit pas en quoi duesberg s'est trompé!! c'est plus littérature que science tout de même!!!

Je n'avais donné le lien vers cet article que pour témoigner de la controverse autour de la publication de ces articles... Il n'y a effectivement pas de critiques détaillées ans cet article. Sur les articles de Duesberg et de Ruggiero, mon jugement était à titre perso, c'est le sentiment que j'avais eu en les lisant, en faire une critique et détaillée demanderait pas mal de temps (et puis comme plus grand monde ne réagit ici....). Mais j'ai déjà souvent expliqué, comme d'autres ici, combien l'hypothèse absurde de Duesberg sur le virus passager avait joué un rôle catastrophique sur la critique du sida en général et sur la dissidence en particulier.

Concernant l'hypothèse de l'article initial, je précise également, je suis incapable d'en avoir un avis définitif vu que je n'ai pas accès au texte. J'ai juste en tête que plusieurs versions sur ce thème ont eu lieu (une fois c'était le vaccin contre la polio, ici c'est celui de la variole), ce qui m'ennuie avec ces causes c'est qu'elles frappent l'esprit et politiquement, c'est une façon de répondre aux orthodoxes qui jugent que le sida vient d'Afrique : avec le vaccin, on inverse la culpabilité et maintenant c'est la faute des occidentaux. C'est de bonne guerre mais les histoires de culpabilités des uns ou des autres ne m'intéresse pas plus que ça, c'est pas ça le problème.

Tout ce que j'ai lu me laisse penser qu'il n'y a pas un facteur unique mais une série de facteurs combinés; qu'on a déjà de nombreuses pistes qui expliquent la questions des tests positifs en Afrique (la malnutrition, le changement des conditions de vie avec l'urbanisation massive dans des conditions catastrophiques, l'utilisation massive de certains antibiotiques peu chers et de certains médicaments comme l'isoniazide, tous donneurs de NO comme l'a souvent souligné Cheminot, le développement de la tuberculose...), etc, etc... En se focalisant sur l'histoire du vaccin, qui joue peut être un rôle mais sûrement pas le seul, on évacue toute les questions sur tous ces facteurs environnementaux et chimiques dont je suis persuadé qu'ils jouent un rôle globalement plus important que ce qu'a pu jouer un vaccin à un moment ou à un autre, et sur lequel on ne peut plus agir aujourd'hui de toute façon.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Jibrail,

Suis assez d'accord avec ton dernier paragraphe ci-dessus sur la série de facteurs combinés en Afrique.

Pour ton invariable position critique sur Peter Duesberg, as-tu lu ses livres ? On trouve en ligne une interview qu'il a donnée à un magazine en août 2011 : http://specimenmagaz...men_Issue_1.pdf

Il y dit bien qu'aucun virus du sida n'a été isolé, il n'y parle nullement de virus passager, mais il explique simplement la différence entre les virus et les rétrovirus. Il résume ainsi son travail dans le champ des rétrovirus et des "oncogènes" dans les années 1970 :

See, most viruses, the majority of the viruses we know in humans and in animals are cytotoxic, meaning they kill the cells in which they replicate. They kill typically a few 1,000 cells, enough for them to survive, when the immune system stops them.

But the retrovirus are so harmless, literally harmless because they do not kill cells for their survival. Moreover, they are typically latent or inert in contrast to all pathogenic viruses. They become genetic residents of the cell, if you want to call them a name. They are in there like your in-laws moving into your house. They are a nuisance, but they are not killing you. And this is how the retroviruses are, and that is why they are, in theory at least, potential cancer viruses.

It is for this reason that we studied them very carefully as so-called possible cancer viruses - because they don’t kill cells like lytic viruses, such as measles, or mumps, or polio. So if a virus kills a cell, it can’t become a cancer cell, but a retrovirus is one that never kills the cell. We retrovirologists kept saying that to each other. We were the leading virologists in the 70s and the 80s for that implied reason. I was one of them. I was the blue-eyed boy in the field. I had every grant I wanted.

We studied these special viruses that don’t kill the cell and therefore could be the cause of cancer, and in this work I found that one of them contained a gene that caused a tumor, the so-called oncogene. This gene actually makes the cells grow faster, or hyperplastic— but these hyperplastic cells are not really cancer cells yet, and such a virus was never found in humans. That is consistent with the fact that human and even animal cancers are not contagious. The “tumor viruses” nevertheless helped us to later find that chromsomal rearrangements are the immediate precursors of cancer.

Celia Farber, qui a signalé la mise en ligne de cet interview, a reproduit sur son site une interview ancienne avec Harvey Bialy à propos de Peter Duesberg, qu'elle avait réalisée et publiée : http://truthbarrier....cimen-magazine/

Pour ma part, je pense que l'expression "virus passager" ne rend pas entièrement compte de la position de Duesberg, si tant est qu'elle soit vraiment de lui et non une extrapolation d'exégètes mal intentionnés. Outre que le Perth Group a manifestement persisté avec une part non négligeable de coquetterie et de mauvaise foi à en faire une pomme de discorde, il s'agit sans nul doute d'une expression qui a été reprise hors contexte à loisir pour affaiblir le sens du propos en exploitant la crédulité des non spécialistes. Car l'argumentation portait essentiellement sur la grossière contradiction consistant à attribuer à un rétrovirus les mêmes propriétés et capacités de nuisance que celles des virus.

Par la même occasion, je rappelle que vient d'être publiée une déclaration finale suite à la conférence dissidente du Pont du Gard :

- En résumé en français : http://rhubarbe.net/...la-declaration/

- Le texte intégral en anglais : http://rhubarbe.net/...aration-pdf.pdf

Modifié par Jardinier

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Pour ma part, je pense que l'expression "virus passager" ne rend pas entièrement compte de la position de Duesberg, si tant est qu'elle soit vraiment de lui et non une extrapolation d'exégètes mal intentionnés. Outre que le Perth Group a sans doute persisté avec une bonne part de mauvaise foi à en faire une pomme de discorde, elle a sans nul doute été reprise hors contexte à loisir pour affaiblir le sens de son propos. Car celui-ci, semble-t-il, portait essentiellement sur la grossière contradiction consistant à attribuer à un rétrovirus les mêmes propriétés et capacités de nuisance que celles des virus.

Mais enfin Jardinier, évidemment que j'ai lu une partie de ses écrits avant de le critiquer; et avant de te lancer dans des accusations gratuites (une bonne part de mauvaise foi) faussement tempérées comme pour t'en dédouaner par avance (sans nul doute), il faudrait quand même que toi aussi un jour tu cherches au minimum à vérifier ce que tu racontes. L'expression de "virus passager" est bien de Duesberg lui-même dans le long article qu'il a publié en 1998 dans Genetica avec David Rasnick (The AIDS Dilemna : drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus).

On y retrouve toutes les limites de son propos qui affirment que le VIH existe et a été isolé, qu'il est non pathologique du fait de la réactivité des anticorps (une stupidité sans nom - ce n'est pas le cas dans de nombreuses pathologies) mais qu'il est sans lien avec les maladies opportunistes liées au sida, dont il attribue l'entière cause (dans les pays du nord) aux seules drogues dures et récréatives. Si le Perth Group et Duesberg ont toujours été d'accord pour incriminer ces drogues, le Perth Group l'a intégré dans un ensemble de facteurs plus vastes qui intègrent de nombreux facteurs qui favorisent l'oxydation cellulaire. Pour le reste, tout diverge ou presque en effet mais ce sont bien des divergences scientifiques (existence du VIH, signification du test "VIH", mode d'action de l'AZT, etc...)

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Il n'en reste pas moins que dans cette ITV récente, Peter Duesberg met avant tout l'accent sur la différence entre virus et rétrovirus.

Voilà en tout cas, extrait de l'article que tu cites, le texte intégral sur la question clé à laquelle tu te réfères, pour que tous ceux qui sont vraiment à même de juger du libellé et de son sens exact puissent le faire sur pièce :

HIV a harmless passenger virus

Whereas the staggering AIDS literature has failed to prove that HIV causes AIDS, it has proved that HIV is a passenger virus (Duesberg, 1994; Duesberg, 1996c; Duesberg & Bialy, 1996). Since a passenger virus is not the cause of a disease, it can be defined as follows:

  1. The time of infection relative to the onset of any disease is irrelevant, and unpredictable.
  2. The virus can be either active or inactive or latent, i.e. neutralized by antibody, during disease.
  3. The virus can be totally absent from the disease.

Indeed, HIV meets each of these criteria:

  1. HIV typically infects decades before AIDS occurs (the so-called latent period of HIV), if AIDS occurs at all (Duesberg, 1992a; Duesberg, 1996c). Unless a person is also a drug user, his or her AIDS risk cannot be predicted from HIV.
  2. HIV is typically latent during AIDS because it is neutralized by antibodies (Duesberg, 1993c; Duesberg & Bialy, 1996).
  3. Thousands of HIV-free AIDS cases have been reported (Duesberg, 1993e). Thus, HIV is a prototypical passenger virus.

The AIDS literature has further shown that HIV is naturally transmitted perinatally (Duesberg, 1992a; Connor et al., 1994; Duesberg, 1994; Duesberg, 1996c). Indeed, perinatal transmission of HIV is 25 to 50% efficient (Duesberg, 1988; Duesberg, 1992a; Connor et al., 1994; Hallauer & Kupsch, 1997), but sexual transmission is less than 0.1% efficient (Peterman et al., 1988; Jacquez et al., 1994; Padian et al., 1997). Therefore, HIV depends on perinatal transmission for survival - just like all other retroviruses (Duesberg, 1987; Duesberg, 1992a).

Because pathogenicity during perinatal transmission would be incompatible with the survival of the host, all perinatally transmitted viruses or microbes must be harmless (Duesberg, 1992a; Duesberg, 1996d). It is for this reason that antibody against HIV is found in at least 17 million healthy humans, including 1 million healthy Americans and 0.5 million healthy Europeans (Figure 1) (Merson, 1993; World Health Organization, 1995a; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997). This is also why HIV was only discovered recently after technology had been developed to detect latent viruses (Duesberg, 1987; Duesberg, 1992a; Duesberg, 1996d; Duesberg & Bialy, 1996). By contrast, all pathogenic viruses were discovered long ago by the diseases that they cause. Thus, HIV is a harmless passenger virus.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

@ Cheminot, Jibrail, Econoclaste,

J'ai fait une légère erreur au début de mon message privé à vous trois ¨Pour votre information" : c'est une interview avec Harvey Bialy que Celia Farber a reproduit sur la page de son site The Truth Barrier. Concernant l'entretien de Peter Duesberg pour Specimen en août 2011, la mise en page du PDF est quelque peu fantaisiste et à mon avis à la limite d'être contre-productive dans son intention de mettre en avant certains passages du texte par des modifications de taille de la police de caractères (pour la petite histoire, c'est une transposition dans le domaine du journalisme de procédés issus de la poésie visuelle et de certains romanciers appartenant au courant littéraire américain de la métafiction, dont l'Allemand Arno Schmidt fut un génialissime précurseur). Il n'en reste pas moins que l'interview en question mérite d'être lue, analysée et interprétée avec la plus grande attention. On peut certes y trouver matière à critique(s), positives et/ou négatives, que ce soit du point de vue comparatif par rapport à des publications antérieures de Peter Duesberg, ou par rapport à des approches de la même thématique par d'autres dissidents scientifiques, des journalistes d'investigation, etc... Ce n'en est pas moins un document qui, afin d'aboutir à une appréciation équilibrée de celui-ci, et sans que pour autant l'on sacrifie quoi que ce soit à la rigueur méthodologique requise par une démarche interprétative digne de ce nom, nécessite tout autant l'antidote d'une approche critique en sympathie que le parti pris de rester axé sur les schémas préétablis de la polémique initiée et entretenue avec une étrange véhémence par le Perth Group.

A titre d'illustration des problèmes qui se posent, c'est en raison du discours de Jibrail, qui n'a jamais manqué de baser sa promotion des travaux et positions du Perth Group sur une réthorique de condamnation quasi sans appel de la démarche de Peter Duesberg en termes d'analyses biomédicales/scientifiques critiques, qu'en fin de compte je n'avais jamais cherché jusqu'à hier à prendre connaissance par moi-même de la communication in extenso où Duesberg a introduit sa thèse du virus passager. Je m'étais du même coup laissé convaincre qu'il était superflu d'aller vérifier par soi-même ce que Duesberg avait pu affirmer au juste quant à la question d'une éventuelle "isolation" d'un virus ou d'un rétrovirus. Or, le péché cardinal imputé à Peter Duesberg par Jibrail et d'autres pourrait pratiquement se résumer, en définitive, à avoir eu l'élégance de s'exprimer en implicitant certaines choses et en recourant aux armes tranchantes de l'ironie, notamment en introduisant la notion piégée de "prototypical passenger virus" - en clair, "not only passenger, but "prototypical" ", autrement dit purement théorique et putatif sinon pour les besoins biotechnologiques aussi précis que biaisés de la mise au point des tests.

Ce n'est quand même pas rien d'avoir pratiquement démontré, à titre de membre de l'Académie des Sciences Américaine et en tant qu'un des cancérologues ayant le plus contribué en toute rigueur scientifique à la déconstruction du mythe du virus du cancer, qu'en fait :

- si il est certain que la P24 est un marqueur de quelque chose, elle avant tout le marqueur, ou l'indice certain, de l'usage de certaines drogues ! ("Unless a person is also a drug user, his or her AIDS risk cannot be predicted from HIV")

- et que par ailleurs, la thèse de la transmission virale du sida de la mère à l'enfant ne tient pas ("Because pathogenicity during perinatal transmission would be incompatible with the survival of the host, all perinatally transmitted viruses or microbes must be harmless (Duesberg, 1992a; Duesberg, 1996d). It is for this reason that antibody against HIV is found in at least 17 million healthy humans, including 1 million healthy Americans and 0.5 million healthy Europeans").

A bons entendeurs, salut,

Modifié par Jardinier

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Si je n'avais pas pu lire tous les articles scientifiques ni les livres de Duesberg, j'étais néanmoins resté dans un prudent scepticisme face aux défenseurs du Groupe de Perth et à leur manière de minorer assez systématiquement les travaux et le rôle de Peter duesberg.

En particulier, j'étais toujours surpris sinon quelque peu choqué que l'on puisse en venir à affirmer que pour Peter Duesberg un virus du sida avait bien été isolé, certes à la nuance près qu'il était "passager" et "inoffensif".

Dans un article de 1992, Victoria A. Harden, l'historienne attitrée du NIH (Institut national de la Santé US) affirme sans la moindre ambiguité que les positions de Duesberg sont entièrement basées sur le fait que l'isolation du virus n'a jamais été effectuée en remplissant toutes les conditions des postulats de Koch. Qu'elle cherche ensuite à justifier, avec un certain embarras, le fait que ces conditions ont pu plus ou moins légitimement être modifiées pour les besoins de la recherche du VIH est non moins évident. Toutefois, nul ne peut se permettre d'insinuer sans déformer outrgeusement la réalité que Peter Duesberg et les membres du Groupe de Perth n'auraient même pas en commun la contestation de l'isolation du virus selon les règles de purification requises par les postulats de Koch.

"Historians might well wonder wether Duesberg's apparently singular objections have any merit, or wether he is stubornly refusing to accept the results of rigourous investigations. Duesberg's arguments are even more interesting because they are based on the conclusion that HIV does not satisfy Koch's postulates and thus cannot be the cause of AIDS."

["Les historiens pourraient bien se demander si les objections apparemment singulières de Peter Duesberg ont quelque mérite, ou bien si il s'obstine à refuser d'accepter les résultats d'investigations rigoureuses. Les arguments de Duesberg sont encore plus intéressants, parce qu'ils sont basés sur la conclusion que le HIV ne satisfait pas les postulats de Koch et que donc il ne peut pas être la cause du sida"]

Koch's postulate and the Etiology of AIDS: an historical perspective - 1992

Victoria A. Harden

http://history.nih.g...h_Postulate.pdf

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Dans un article de 1992, Victoria A. Harden, l'historienne attitrée du NIH (Institut national de la Santé US) affirme sans la moindre ambiguité que les positions de Duesberg sont entièrement basées sur le fait que l'isolation du virus n'a jamais été effectuée en remplissant toutes les conditions des postulats de Koch. Qu'elle cherche ensuite à justifier, avec un certain embarras, le fait que ces conditions ont pu plus ou moins légitimement être modifiées pour les besoins de la recherche du VIH est non moins évident. Toutefois, nul ne peut se permettre d'insinuer sans déformer outrgeusement la réalité que Peter Duesberg et les membres du Groupe de Perth n'auraient même pas en commun la contestation de l'isolation du virus selon les règles de purification requises par les postulats de Koch.

J'avoue ignorer quel enjeu personnel tu mets dans ce débat, mais il y a visiblement une charge affective qui t'aveugle.

Il y a eu un grand débat il y maintenant une quinzaine d'année sur l'isolation du virus, dans la revue dissidente Continuum et que l'on peut lire sur le site de Virusmyth.

La revue avait proposé un "prix" pour quiconque prouverait l'isolation du VIH.

Duesberg, sans la moindre ambiguité possible, avait réclamé le prix car pour lui le virus a bel et bien été isolé par Montagnier

Ce n'est évidemment pas le cas du Perth Group qui a fait une longue réponse (ainsi que Stefan Lanka et Neville Hodgkinson), ainsi qu'un nouvel échange.

C'était en 1996 et il n'y a qu'à lire ces archives... Même si c'est en anglais, si c'est très technique, si on ne saisit pas tous les tenants et aboutissants des arguments, et même loin de là, on ne peut pas nier qu'il y a un fossé entre les deux sur cette question (a-t-il été prouvé que le virus existe ou non ?). Et j'ajouterai que personnellement, il n'est pas nécessaire d'être un grand scientifique (mais certes un bon anglophone) pour voir que là où le Perth Group développe une démarche pédagogique, argumentée et s'appuyant sur des dizaines de publications (même si ça ne suffit pas pour la rendre correcte en elle-même), Duesberg se réfugie essentiellement derrière des arguments d'autorité et ne s'embarasse pas à tenter d'approfondir (ce qui ne suffit certes pas non plus à lui donner tort).

Sur les postulats de Koch : ils concernent la démonstration de l'infectivité d'un micro-organisme : ils sont utilisés pour prouver qu'il y a bien un rapport de cause à effet entre tel micro-organisme et telle infection, en clair que c'est bien le microbe soupçonné qui est responsable de l'infection et que ce ne sont pas d'autres facteurs.

Postulats originaux de Koch

  1. Le micro-organisme doit être présent en abondance dans tous les organismes souffrant de la maladie, mais absent des organismes sains.
  2. Le micro-organisme doit pouvoir être isolé de l'organisme malade et cultivé in vitro.
  3. Le micro-organisme cultivé doit entraîner l'apparition de la maladie lorsque introduit dans un organisme sain.
  4. Le micro-organisme doit être à nouveau isolé du nouvel organisme hôte rendu malade puis identifié comme étant identique à l'agent infectieux original.

La question de l'isolation d'un virus ou plus particulièrement ici d'un rétrovirus fait partie du deuxième postulat de Koch : le micro-organisme doit pouvoir être isolé et cultivé in vitro. Et c'est sur ce point qu'il y a le désaccord central : y a-t-il eu isolation ou non ? Pour le Perth Group, les standards d'isolation en vigueur (et qui ont été décrit à nouveau en 1973 par Françoise Barré-Sinoussi elle-même) n'ont pas été respectés pour prouver l'isolation, notamment à cause de l'absence de photographie au microscope électronique de rétrovirus purifiés. Je ne redétaille pas ce point que Wallypat n'a eu de cesse de le rappeler dans nombre de ses messages. Ces critères d'isolation des rétrovirus sont résumés (en anglais) par exemple sur cette page :

1. Culture of putatively infected cells demonstrating that such cultures contain retroviral-like particles, that is, particles virtually spherical in shape with a diameter of 100-120nM and with "condensed inner bodies (cores)" and surfaces "studded with projections (knobs)".

2. Purification of a sample by ultracentrifugation through a sucrose density gradient.(...)

3. Using the electron microscope (EM), photograph the 1.16 band proving there are particles of the correct morphology and no other material.

4. Disrupt and analyse the constituents of such particles.

5. Introduce pure particles into a virgin culture and, by repeating the above steps, prove that identical particles are produced

Pour Duesberg, le 2ème postulat de Koch (isolation du micro-organisme) est vérifié, mais pas le 3ème (il cause la maladie) car selon lui il est inoffensif.

Pour le Perth Group, le 2ème postulat n'est pas vérifié, et donc le 3ème ne peut pas l'être non plus (si le virus n'existe pas, il ne peut pas causer la maladie).

Il y a donc une différence majeure !

Je t'invite à regarder, concernant l'isolation, la vidéo d'Emperor New Virus qu'Illusion a pu sous-titrer (mille merci pour ce travail de titan!).

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Donc, Peter Duesberg aurait invalidé partiellement au moins en 1996 ce que Victoria Harden affirmait à son sujet en 1992 ?

En attendant (ce qui risque de durer pas mal de temps) de cliquer sur tous tes liens ci-cessus et d'affiner autant que possible mon jugment en prenant le temps d'avoir tout lu et décrypté, ce en fonction entre autres du contexte de notre discussion, dans ces textes en anglais hautement spécialisé auxquels les liens renvoient, n'as-tu pas remarqué l'exergue en tête de ton lien http://www.virusmyth...v/epreplypd.htm ? Je la reproduis ici :

"Listening to both sides of a story will convince you that there is more to a story than both sides"- Frank Tyger

D'ores et déjà, il me semble remarquer aussi une grossière erreur grammaticale dans la rédaction de la phrase ci-après :

"Since infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected human cells that is free of HIV's own proteins and RNA as well as from all cellular macromolecules, HIV isolation has passed the most vigorous standards available today. In other words these infectious DNA clones meet and exceed the isolation standards of the traditional "Pasteur rules".

Donc, compte tenu et de leur maniement bien indélicat des règles grammaticales élémentaires, et compte tenu de divers autres paramètres troublants, Duesberg et tous ses clones peuvent être tranquillement condamnés au bûcher ???

____________________

Jibrail :

J'avoue ignorer quel enjeu personnel tu mets dans ce débat, mais il y a visiblement une charge affective qui t'aveugle.

Ma réponse : voir la citation en exergue de Frank Tyger que je reproduis ci-dessus. En d'autres termes, je suis en quête d'une vérité (de plus en plus en plus historique au fur et à mesure que le temps passe) par d'autres voies que celles exclusives de la croyance naïve en ce que disent des énoncés à statut "scientifique" institué et/ou à prétention de pouvant-valoir-pour-contestation-de-même-niveau-de-garantie-institutitionnelle-que-ce-qui-se-réclame-à-meilleur-compte-dudit-statut.

Autrement dit encore, je trouve que certains accents de l'argumentation des membres du Perth Group, de même que certains accents de ta défense de ceux-ci et tes procédés consistant à rappeler systématiquement que l'argumentation du Perth Group vaut notamment sinon avant tout par comparaison avec le développement dans le temps des thèses et antithèses de Peter Duesberg, eh bien, quelque part, sans que je puisse déterminer de quoi exactement, tout cela me semble avoir valeur de symptôme sinon d'indice, tant du point de vue psychanalytique que du point de vue d'une science des textes et documents s'appuyant autant que faire se peut, dans ses buts de recherche à la fois historiographique et épistémologique, sur des principes méthodologiques élaborés à partir des acquis d'une sémiotique et d'une sémiologie issues essentiellement de la linguistique saussurienne. Rien de plus et de rien de moins.

Et si, sans préjuger des vertus et limites respectives des uns et des autres, il y avait un style Duesberg de même qu'il y a un style Perth Group, un style Neville Hogdkinson, un style Crewdson, un style Farber, un style Victoria Harden, etc. ? (Pour comprendre un peu en quel sens je peux entendre "style" ici et ailleurs, voir un article d'un certain Ivan Almeida sur le style de Louis Hjelmslev (http://www.revue-tex...eida_Style.html) que j'ai glissé un jour dans l'incomparable grand fratras de ce forum...)

Modifié par Jardinier

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

""
Since infectious HIV DNA has been isolated from infected human
cells
that
is
free of HIV's own proteins and RNA as well as from all cellular macromolecules
,"

Au moins pour un lecteur francophone, la tournure mise en oeuvre est assez précieuse et elliptique, et l'écriture littérale n'y reflète sans doute en réalité aucune erreur grammaticale, et il doit falloir lier en français : "Puisque de l'ADN de HIV infectieux a été isolé (dans) de(s) cellules humaines infectées tout en étant libre [that is free of] de ses protéines et de son ARN aussi bien que de toutes macromolécules cellulaires,"... Reste bien sûr ensuite à (re)voir de quoi il retourne lorsque l'on parle de "clones d'ADN infectieux"...

Cet exemple pour montrer que l'exercice interprétatif nécessite à tous égards de dépasser bien des réflexes de lecture et de compréhension de la performance linguistique et particulièrement de sa forme écrite dans telle ou telle langue, dépassement nécessaire tant sur les plans linguistique et littéraire que sur celui du rapport de l'interprète au savoir en biologie moléculaire, en immunologie, épistémologie, sciences du social et du psycho-social, sciences (du) politique(s) etc...

Il est exact, comme le fait valoir Jibrail, que le parti pris d'expression des membres du Perth Group privilégie en général les vertus d'une patiente et méthodique démarche pédagogique. Mais toute l'affaire est bien trop complexe pour que l'adhésion aux vertus logiques et à l'efficience d'une telle démarche prenne inconsidérément le risque de concourir à seulement occulter et dévaloriser les spécificités d'une démarche et d'un style aussi différents que ceux de Peter Duesberg.

A titre de thèse, j'avancerais qu'une grande partie du problème dans le cas d'école très limite du sida et de sa dissidence se ramène à une problèmatique relative à l'Ordre du Savoir, au partage du Savoir, et aux enjeux philosophiques et éthiques inhérents aux pratiques des Gens de Savoir, quitte à devoir envisager celles-ci jusque sous un angle quasiment ethnologique (ne fut-ce que pour en débusquer l'arrière-fond crasseux d'ethnicisme et d'oligarchisme).

Modifié par Jardinier

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Rebayima :

un exemple : vous contaminez volontairement un groupe de mineurs de tuberculose en répandant le bacille dans leur home ou dans les mines. ils contamineront d'autres personnes par d'autres voies que la voie initiale d'origine. après vous direz que la contamination volontaire n'était pas possible pcq d'autres gens non mineurs ou ne fréquentant pas la mine ont été contaminées ?!!!

Certes, le raisonnement dans l'absolu est intéressant et donne beaucoup à penser ! Ceci dit, je pense que même le docteur La Mort n'aurait pas été assez vicelard et stupide pour voir quelque utilité à répandre le bacille dans les mines. La tuberculose est une maladie typique des mineurs depuis qu'elle a été repérée et définie et depuis qu'il y a des mines. En revanche, renverser la vapeur et insinuer sinon affirmer que puisque la tuberculose est une conséquence d'un affaiblissement du système immunitaire, la véritable et quasi unique cause de la tuberculose ne serait autre que le VIH est complètement folle : en effet, dans ce cas là, puisque et depuis que l'on sait venir à bout de la tuberculose, cela ne signifierait-il pas pratiquement que l'on sait neutraliser les effets du VIH, ou du moins certains de celui-ci et non des moindres ?

En revanche encore, comme je l'ai dit, si la tuberculose est une conséquence d'une "infection" au VIH (26 % de dépistés séropositifs chez Lonmin en 2003) et si celui-ci se transmet essentiellement par voie sexuelle, les compagnies minières sont pour tout ou partie exonérées de la prise en charge de la tuberculose à titre de maladie professionnelle causée par les conditions de travail, la nature de celui-ci, et les conditions d'hygiène et sanitaires dans les lieux de vie à proximité des mines. il est à peu près certain que pour les compagnies minières et la Global Buisness Coalition, c'est un calcul du moindre frais et de la moindre responsabilité dans les dommages sanitaires subis par leur personnel qui dicte leur investissement dans le dépistage et la prise en charge du sida par les entreprises.

Jibrail, tous :

Je viens de relire la page où Duesberg expose sa démonstration de l'isolation du VIH. Avec certes pas mal de doutes - qui n'en aurait pas y compris chez des biologistes et médico-scientifiques honnêtes et authentiquement conséquents ? -, j'aurais tendance à penser que c'est d'un bout à l'autre un massacrant exercice d'ironie dénonçant en creux la part impardonnable de logique circulaire inhérente à la méthode du "clonage". Je peux me certes me tromper. Sa communication d'août 2011, en tout cas, même si elle vient bien tard, fait oeuvre de salubrité publique en explicitant à quel point au niveau du discours vulgarisateur il y a eu une coupable duplicité réthorique ne serait-ce que via l'exploitation du terme "virus" - à commencer par et jusque dans l'acronyme VIH/HIV - en lieu et place de "rétrovirus". Au passage, il semble aussi donner à penser que vu les caractéristiques réelles des rétrovirus, y compris le mal nommé VIH/HIV, à la limite on n'a même pas besoin d'aller chercher des "endorétrovirus", pour ne rien dire du curieux glissement qui s'est opéré à un moment donné vers les "lentivirus".

De toute façon, "The Emperor's Virus" et sa version sous-titrée en français (http://www.sidasante.com/forum/index.php?/topic/17420-traduction-video-bonus-house-of-numbers/#entry314861) nous donnent je pense à peu près tous les éléments pour y voir aussi clair que l'on puisse y voir - et nous offrent au passage une démonstration en acte que la barrière des langues et la difficulté à réaliser et diffuser des documents en traduction auront hélas beaucdoup joué en défaveur de la dissidence scientifique. Même si on lit/entend l'anglais sans trop de peine et si on est parvenu à se familiariser avec le genre, les tournures et le vocabulaire spécialisés de la littérature scientifique dans cette langue, celle-ci n'en fait pas moins écran, induit une part de flou, et atténue considérablement les effets de la compréhension que nous pouvons en avoir comparativement au degré d'acuité de ce que nous sommes en mesure de comprendre dans notre langue maternelle pour peu que nous soyons un minimum éduqués et cultivés. Comme de plus des textes courts ne contiennent ni les mêmes données ni les mêmes messages que des livres entiers et idem pour les vidéos et documents audio, beaucoup d'entre nous - qui sommes de plus une infime minorité - n'auront eu souvent qu'une vision atténuée sinon tronquée de l'importance et de la pertinence du travail des dissidents scientifiques. C'est pourquoi je suggère aux dissidents de bonne volonté de laisser de côté au moins pour le moment les aspects et accents les plus réducteurs de la polémique entre Peter Duesberg et le Perth Group, et d'aller lire d'urgence la traduction en français du bouquin historique de Duesberg en cours de parution à Bruxelles : http://www.resurgence.be/150-l-invention-du-virus-du-sida-h-duesberg-9782874341267.html

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

A propos de Peter Duesberg, enore : Juste un petit mot pour signaler à qui lit l'anglais que de larges extraits du livre de Harvey Bialy publié en 2004, Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg, sont accessibles via Google Books :

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

J'ai trouvé récemment des documents d'archive en anglais intéressants :

- L'un sur les conditions précises du "baptême" du HIV au niveau des institutions politico-scientifiques (c'est moi qui ai souligné certains passages) :

http://www.alexalienart.com/sonia.htm

The Political Taxonomy of 'HIV': Selling a Signifier without a Signified

Alex Russell, CONTINUUM Vol. 5, No. 5 Midwinter, 1998-1999

"What's in a name? The latest name for the AIDS virus is in trouble before the christening is over. It is understandable that Gallo should now be unwilling to use the recommended name for any but generic purposes." Nature, 1st May, 1986, Opinion, p.2

"AIDS Virus Has New Name - Perhaps. The name 'human immunodeficiency virus' has been recommended for the AIDS virus, but some prominent dissent raises questions about its acceptance." Science, 9th May, 1986, News & Comment, p 699.

"A thing is what it is not because of its place in the ideal classification system but because of its place in real history. The order of concretely existing things is from now on determined not by ideal essences outside them but by the historical forces buried within them." Gary Cutting, Michel Foucault's Archeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

The taxonomic classification of 'HIV' (22-23 May, 1986) was ostensibly a strategic invention to present a nomenclature that would unify a diversely identified putative 'retrovirus': human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III ('HTLV-III'), immunodeficiency-associated virus ('IDAV'), aids-associated retrovirus ('ARV') and lymphadenopathy-associated virus ('LAV'). The not so hidden agenda behind this politically expedient move was to enforce the 'belief' that an alleged 'human retrovirus' caused 'immunodeficiency'.

Thus the manufacturing of 'HIV' hegemonic (misinformed) consent reinforced a 'retroviral' episteme for 'aids' causation. However, thirteen years on 'HIV' has still not proved to be a human immuno-deficiency virus. If the function of a name is to designate its individuality, then clearly 'HIV' was a baptism by mistaken identity. The moment of fictional baptism was reported in Science (Harold Varmus et al., 9 May, 1986), in which eleven of the thirteen members of a subcommittee - ("empowered by the International Committee on the taxonomy of Viruses") - nominated 'HIV':

We are writing to propose that the AIDS retroviruses be officially designated as the human immunodeficiency viruses, to be known in abbreviated form as HIV...The name is readily distinguished from all existing names for this group of viruses and has been chosen without regard to priority of discovery. The name is sufficiently distinct from the names of other retroviruses to imply an independent virus species...We hope that this proposal will be adopted rapidly by the research community working with the viruses.

This letter was followed by this EDITOR'S NOTE:

Myron Essex and Robert C. Gallo, who are also members of the Human Retrovirus Subcommittee, did not sign the above letter.

The same letter was also published in Nature (1st May, 1986) followed by a cautious Editor's note:

An earlier version of this letter asked that journals publishing it should make use of the name HIV a condition for the publication of research articles. Nevertheless, Nature will continue its present practice of allowing its contributors to use whatever nomenclature seems to them appropriate..."

Science also rejected the use of the name 'HIV' as a "condition" for the publication of articles and deleted the request from the published letter. The original letter from the nomenclature committee asked:

that the editors of all journals that print this letter insist that published papers conform to these rules.

Harold Varmus, Chairman, Human Retrovirus Subcommittee, told Science (9 May, 1986):

We're not a policing outfit. We can only strongly recommend that researchers use the name and that journals as their authors to use it.

While the international sub-committee wanted all journals and scientific papers to refer to 'HTLV-III' as 'HIV', Gallo, who sat on the sub-committee, disagreed by refusing to sign the letter announcing the new name, and refused to call the virtual virus 'HIV' (New Scientist, 15 May, 1986). Gallo wanted the new name to be "human retrovirus" ('HRV'): the power of naming gives one kudos and control over the name.

Most committee members felt that 'HRV' was too "nonspecific". Joseph Palca ('Controversy over AIDS virus extends to name', Nature, News,1 May, 1986) reported that the name 'HIV' did not win hegemonic consent:

But HIV never had unanimous support from Varmus's subcommittee. Nearly half of the members preferred the current compound name, HTLV-III/LAV. Others, including Gallo, Essex and Temin preferred human retrovirus (HRV)...Steve Gillis of Immunex Corporation at Seattle, Washington, who is familiar with controversies over new names from his own experience with lymphokines, questions whether a name that is not supported by Gallo can win general support. In addition to Gallo and Essex, a prominent AIDS researcher who asked not to be identified indicated that he would not use the new name. Following the Gallo/Heckler paradigm by press conference announcement ("the probable cause of aids has been found") of April 23, 1984, The New York Times ('A Viral Competition over AIDS', April 26, 1984) was quick to spot the power-politics of naming referring to the old dispute between 'LAV' and 'HTLV-III': In the world of science, as among primitive societies, to be the namer of an object is to own it. While being the proud 'owner' of 'HTLV-III', opportunist Gallo did not rule out the possibility of switching to 'HIV' and soon fell into line:

It's not that I hate the name. If it is accepted widely I would gravitate toward it. (Science, 9th May, 1986).

Max Essex objected to the name 'HIV' because he thought that it revealed "little or nothing about the nature of the virus and may even be confusing". (Science, 9 May, 1986). Essex and Gallo also objected to the name 'HIV' because 'HTLV-III' and 'LAV' had been widely used both in the primary scientific literature and in the popular press: The terms are so thoroughly engrained in the literature that it may be impossible to change them in the minds of people who use them, Essex explained. (Science, 9 May, 1986).
Pressure built. F. Brown, President, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, wrote to Nature (20th June, 1986):

At a meeting on 22 and 23 May 1986 the Executive Committee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) endorsed the name human immunodeficiency virus recently proposed by a large majority of the members of a study group of ICTV headed by Harold Varmus (Letters, 9 May, p.697) as appropriate for retrovirus isolates implicated as causing the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The new name describes the host and a major biological property of the virus from isolates of human T cell lymphotropic virus types I and II...the committee recommends the use of the name human immunodeficiency virus as the vernacular name to replace HTLV-III and LAV.

Contrary to F. Brown's claim, the "new name" could not describe "the host and a major biological property of the virus...". There was no isolated evidence then (as now) that this amorphous stuff was a putative 'retrovirus' that caused 'immunodeficiency'. The acronym 'HIV' is meaningless. The Executive Committee of the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses should be charged under an appropriate jurisdiction for ratifying a fraudulent nomenclature. There is no 'gold standard' definition of 'HIV', as Eleopulos et al. state:

There is no agreement on the precise taxonomic classification of HIV. Initially, HIV was reported as an Oncoviral type-C particle, then a type-D particle, and then as a member of a different Subfamily, a Lentivirus... ('Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?', Eleni Eleopulos et al., Emergency Medicine, 1993).

Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology at Berkeley, observed that to many, the name 'HIV' itself becomes the 'proof' of 'HIV'! :

One of the things I want to point out is the tricky business of naming a virus. Naming something HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Avian Leukosis Virus, Avian Myelocytosis Virus - all of those names fix in the minds of those who use them, or work with them, that this is the proof. It's like Noah naming the animals, a way of controlling them. It's really more of a political than a scientific problem.

Lacanian cultural theorist, Slavoj Zizek pinpoints the idiocy behind the tautological belief that a 'name' of an 'object' is what 'it is' because 'it' says 'it is':

Here we encounter the dogmatic stupidity proper to a signifier as such, the stupidity which assumes the shape of a tautology: a name refers to an object because this object is called that... (The Sublime Object of Ideology, Verso, 1989).

Meditel's 'AIDS'-analyst Michael Verney-Elliott dismisses 'human retroviruses':

I propose there are no human retroviruses..'HIV' is not Human, it has never been proven to be the cause of Immunodeficiency, and is not a Virus, but a misinterpreted artefact of human and simian cell cultures. Therefore the acronym 'HIV' is wrong on all counts. ('SIV' and Poliovaccination - A Shot In The Foot?, unpublished, 1999).

Virologist and political activist, Dr. Stefan Lanka has long argued that 'HIV' is non-viral material:

I found that when they are speaking about HIV they are not speaking about a virus. They are speaking about cellular characteristics and activities of cells under very special conditions... I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses, in fact do not exist at all. (Zenger's, December, 1998).

What has been taken for 'HIV' is mimesis: the construction of an object according to verisimilitude, rather than truth: 'mock-virus', 'virus-like particles', etc. Philosopher, Jaques Derrida's strategy for achieving the suspension of elusive acronyms such as 'HIV' is the device of placing words 'under erasure' , signified by crossing them through - thus invalidating their putative meaning and warning the reader not to accept them at face value. This textual strategy will help to emphasise that the correspondence between the signifier (HIV) and the signified-stuff (non-viral material, microvesicles, etc.) is spurious and arbitrary. Critical Theorist, Mark Cousins on the problematic of naming:

"Who has the authority to name? The question of naming is deeply embedded in questions of authorisation. The name is an externally imposed form of bureaucratic registration. What is at stake is not the object but the name of the object...What is in the name is not there. To call upon a name is to fail because by definition, nothing is there. The name is that which is there in the absence of the object. There is nothing behind the name...The name is the last survivor." ('In the Name of the Object', Mark Cousins, 6th November, 1998).

As there is nothing behind the name HIV why do retrovirologists still hunt for the impossible object of desire - HIV? They desire the signifier ('HIV') because the signified (HIV) does not exist. Retrovirologists' insane scopic drive to penetrate HIV is just an objectification of a void; their 'scopicdrive' to unveil HIV becomes the impossible infinite quest to recover a lost object of desire. The HIV paradigm embodies a 'theory of desire': it 'promises' without ever quite 'delivering'. Thus it is the absence of HIV that sustains the drive. According to Slavoj Zizek, HIV exemplifies psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan's 'object petit a' (the object-cause of desire): "an object that is, in a way, posited by desire itself". Lacan stated that the 'objet a' is not a Real object, but the "presence of a hollow, a void, which can be occupied...by any object". The desire to unveil the (illusory) 'HIV' (the 'petit objet a') under the gaze of the electronmicroscope inevitably throws up a distortion of 'objective reality' because the retrovirologists gaze has inserted his/her desired (distorted) interpretation of the image over the imaged signified-stuff. Zizek's thesis on the economy of desire epitomises the 'retrovirologists' psychotic desire to penetrate the phantom HIV:

The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., the object a is an object that can be perceived only by a gaze 'distorted' by desire, an object that does not exist for an 'objective' gaze. In other words, the object a is always, by definition, perceived in a distorted way, because outside this distortion, 'in itself', it does not exist, since it is nothing but the embodiment, the materialization of this very distortion, of this surplus of confusion and perturbation introduced by desire into so-called 'objective reality'. The object a is objectively nothing, though, viewed from a certain perspective, it assumes the shape of 'something'...Desire 'takes off' when 'something' (its object-cause) embodies, gives positive existence to its 'nothing', to its void... ('How Real is Reality?': Looking Awry, MIT Press, 1991).

The 'HIV' signifier "perfectly exemplifies the way fantasy space functions as an empty surface, as a kind of screen for the projection of desires" (Zizek). Lacan stated that "what makes man desire, what is the cause of their desire...is this 'objet a'...a phantom...which fascinates them". HIV is a phantom that can assume an infinite number of mutable strains to meet the HIV fantasists' ('hiv-researchers') infinite desires. The 150,000 plus papers written 'In The Name Of HIV' represent a 'scopic-drive' group-fantasy concerning the ontological and metaphysical maneuvers of kitsch kamikaze HIV kinetics.

Thus the papers written 'In The Name of HIV' merely reveal the arbitrariness and distance between the signifier ('HIV') and the signified-stuff (non-'HIV') which becomes more and more dislocated and dissolved the more they try to penetrate the signified stuff until all that is left is the spurious signifier. The drive to see the stuff turns out to be just a drive to see the name: with the failure of the object HIV to be present - all they have left is the 'name'; and there is nothing 'in' the 'name'. Yet hundreds of thousands have been sacrificed 'In The Name of HIV'. The name 'HIV' (as a curse) becomes a sacrificial effigy to which the 'diagnosed' are offered: just like those who are sacrificed to the 'Whicker Man'. Names can kill. The taxonomic construction of HIV is the most sadistic-hex-hoax since the invention of 'GOD'. Those Acting In The Name Of HIV have initiated man-made mass death. We must erase the names 'HIV' and 'GOD' before these names erase us. The names 'HIV' and 'GOD' existed only in order to be annihilated. Psychoanalyst and author, Julia Kristeva observes the name betrays the Thing-in-itself:

...the belief in conveyability ('mother is nameable, God is nameable') leads to a strongly individualized discourse...But in that very practice we end up with the perfect betrayal of the unique Thing-in-itself (the Res Divina). Why is the nomination a betrayal? Because if all the fashions of naming it are allowable, the verbal reality, the Thing postulated in itself, becomes dissolved in the thousand and one ways of naming it...

In 1980 Gallo's HL23V was 'decommissioned', 'declassified', 'unnamed' and was agreed to be 'non-existent' - it is now time for the sacrificial-signifier HIV to be 'decommissioned', 'declassified', 'unnamed' because the stigmatised signified-stuff is non-existent. What will be the devastating consequences of unnaming HIV?

Alex Russell

______________________

______________________

- Et un autre document qui approfondit ce qu'on savait déjà sur les rôles et positionnements de Gallo, Popovic et Gonda dans la vraie-fausse découverte du HIV, la réécriture des communications dans Science, etc. Je ne sais trop s'il s'agit d'un extrait d'un bouquin de Henry Bauer ou d'un texte d'un autre auteur. Mais il apporte des compléments d'information et des précisions qui éclairent encore mieux cet épisode clé que les analyses et documents d'archive fournis par John Crewdson :

http://umlingo.wozaonline.co.za/important+information

How the HIV Papers were fixed at the last moment.

I was now faced by a quandary. The very papers the above investigations found to be riddled with fraud were the ones I was told to go to if I wanted to know how the French HIV was proved to cause AIDS, for the American government investigators had praised as successful the last of the experiments documented in them, those carried out after February 22nd and before March 30th 1984. These, they said, had used the French virus and had finally and successfully proved it to cause AIDS. (Yet they also said these experiments were so poorly recorded that they were unrepeatable.)

I was unused to the idea that I could trust only parts of scientific papers, but this was what I was expected to do. The prestigious investigations and institutions were all in agreement. They condemned as false Gallo's claim that he and his team had isolated this virus in 1982, in other words, before the French. Instead they scathingly concluded that, as of the 22nd February 1984, that is six weeks before these Science papers went for publication on March 30th, Gallo could not have identified HIV, since up until this date ‘no HIV-specific reagents [antibodies] were available to prove that a particular sample harboured the AIDS virus.'

In other words, Gallo could not have identified HIV in 1982 and 1983 as he has claimed, by detecting antibodies specific to it. The investigating scientists pointed out that it was impossible to prove an antibody targeted the AIDS virus before proving what virus caused AIDS!

It was not that the French had earlier proved their

. They had stated in 1983, just before sending a sample of their virus to Gallo, that: ‘the role of the virus in the aetiology of AIDS remains to be determined.' However it was not just viruses they sent him. It was reported that it was a sample of a culture grown in their laboratory from the blood cells of a suspected AIDS patient, but their 1983 paper stated birth umbilical cord cells were in fact used, with no mention of the mother being infected. They thought some particles in the culture might be retroviruses that caused AIDS - but could not be sure. Montagnier later confessed, they could not find in their serum any particles with ‘the morphology typical of retroviruses.'

Therefore, it was evident that, as it was not the French, it must have been Gallo and Popovic who proved the French virus to cause AIDS - and they must have done this in that final six weeks of experimenting.

I thus began to read the account of Gallo and Popovic's final 1984 experiments in the Science papers with great care and some expectation. These are recorded in the first of the four papers, the one for which Popovic is the lead author.

From the reports of the US investigations and of others involved at the time. I knew that Gallo had been so confident in their coming success with the French virus that he had left his senior investigative scientist, Popovic, in charge of the vital work with the French virus while he went off to France to boast that they had already discovered the AIDS virus.

In the same total confidence, before going abroad, he also made advance arrangements for Popovic's paper, and three others based on it, to be published together in the May 4th issue of Science. He would not return until only two weeks before the papers were to be submitted for publication on March 30th 1984.

I found this most odd - how could Gallo be absolutely certain of the outcome of these vital experiments before they were carried out! Otherwise, how does one explain his otherwise irrational confidence, his putting at risk of his professional status, by going off to boast of his success before it was achieved?

I needed to know more, so I raked through the Gallo laboratory documents these investigations had unearthed, including some that John Crewdson retrieved under Freedom of Information legislation. One of these turned out to be the draft of the key Science paper, as typed up by Popovic and presented to Gallo on his return from France, a few days before the papers went to the publisher.

I was thrilled to find this. I had learnt of its existence from the reports of the investigators. They told me it had only survived because Popovic had taken extraordinary steps to protect it from the shredding machine. He had secretly sent it to his sister in Austria for safekeeping, only to be made public if needed to prove who had falsified his research.

He had retrieved it when the investigations began - but had hoped not to use it. Then after an interview with the OSI, he was sent by mistake a tape that recorded, not just his answers to questions, but also the comments made after he left the room. This revealed that he, rather than Gallo, was to be found guilty of scientific misconduct. Next morning he had a lawyer give this carefully hidden draft to the OSI.

Knowing all this, made me extremely curious to read the manuscript. I was keen to see what Popovic had reported before Gallo did his editing. After all, it was he who had completed these experiments, not Gallo. The Investigators had reported: 'Dr. Popovic single-handedly carried out the most important early HIV experiments.' They had also verified that the handwritten changes on the draft were by Gallo.

On his return to the States from Europe, Gallo had collected this draft, started to read it and then received a terrible shock. It was nothing like what he had anticipated. Popovic had only just left for a skiing holiday in Utah. Gallo contacted him urgently on the Friday 21st of March and ordered him back. This was only 9 days before the paper had to be sent for publication.

The government investigators report that Gallo then extensively changed the paper's typed text in his own hand at the last moment before sending it for publication. His changes are the key evidence later cited to prove that he had deliberately hidden the use of the French virus. The Congressional Staff Report stated: ‘The cover-up of the LTCB's [Gallo's Laboratory] work with the IP [institut Pasteur] virus advanced to a more active phase in mid-March 1984, when Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB paper.'

I now had in front of me what Popovic saw when he got back to the laboratory in Washington on Monday 24th March, only 6 days before this key paper had to be submitted to Science. It was fascinating to see that his 13 page typed manuscript had been absolutely covered in Gallo's scribbled comments, redrafted paragraphs and furious notes in the margins. There were also two extra pages of his rough notes added at the end.

Gallo had changed the title of the paper. When published it would claim that they had ‘isolated' the virus. But there was no mention of isolation in the title originally. I was intrigued. Isolation is said to be a key step in the study of any virus. I looked over the whole draft paper with care and found there were no experiments in it designed to isolate the virus for research purposes.

But where was the justification for calling the virus ‘cytopathic'! I knew that elsewhere Gallo claimed that it killed T-Cells, But extraordinarily, I could find no trace in this paper, as drafted or as published, of any evidence produced to prove this - despite this claim being made in its title.

But, wasn't this paper supposed to prove this virus to cause AIDS by killing T-Cells? That is what everyone has said of it since. As far as I could see, after the most careful of readings, the paper simply stated that proteins thought to be from a virus were found in serum samples from less than half of the AIDS patients tested. This was not just weak evidence. It established no causal relationship at all. Surely I must be missing something? I went back to reading the draft with great care.

---------- continues

I shrugged aside my sceptical thoughts and started to read the body of the paper.

On its page three was the famous admission by Popovic that he had used the French virus LAV ‘which is described here as HTLV-III'. Gallo deleted this and noted alongside: ‘I just don't believe it. You are absolutely incredible.' It seems he must have previously instructed Popovic not to mention the French origin.

The investigators commented later that these edits were 'highly instructive with respect to the nature and intent of Dr. Gallo's actions'. It was fortunately, I thought, that he had left the underlying text mostly legible.

From what I read, Popovic seems to have been entirely honest in reporting their renaming of the French virus, although he must have known this would make Gallo furious. This made me wonder if Popovic had wisely decided to make Gallo write the deceptive text himself. (Was this why Popovic went away to ski?) I hoped the rest of his original typed draft would be equally honest.

The rest of that page was simply a summary of Gallo's earlier work with the leukaemia-linked HTLV-I. It said: ‘epidemiologic data strongly suggests AIDS is caused by an infectious agent' but presented none of this data to support this.

But when I turned the page, I was riveted. Gallo had deleted a statement by Popovic saying: 'Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.'

(images in book - scanned copies of the words as typed by Popovic and changed by Gallo)

This was totally unexpected. Nothing I read had led me to expect this. No one had mentioned these deleted words. Not Crewdson, not any of the investigators, no history of AIDS science. No one had reported these words, let alone their deletion by Gallo.

If Popovic had said ‘prior to our research, the causative agent of AIDS had not been identified', I would not have been at all surprised. It would have been precisely what I expected. But - the sentence was unexpectedly in the present tense. Was he saying that their work with the disguised French virus had not yet succeeded? He had been brutally honest about admitting that he was using the French viruses. Was he being equally honest here?

Since then, I have repeatedly re-read the paper - and, much to my surprise, I find it contains no attempt at any point to prove that this virus causes AIDS! It is all about their efforts to grow a virus in a laboratory culture, not about research on this virus. Was Popovic admitting here that they had not yet managed to prove it causes AIDS? If so, then this would give an entirely new meaning to one of the most famous papers in virology. However, I decided that I would carefully read what else Popovic had to report before making up my mind.

Gallo clearly thought no one but Popovic would see his editing. When the paper was retyped and published a few weeks later it would be so completely changed that a government Research Integrity Adjudications Panel would report of it; ‘The paper in question, it is undisputed, made a major and lasting contribution to establishing that a retrovirus was the etiological agent of AIDS.'

I wondered with what had Gallo had replaced these words ‘despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified' in the final published document. I checked and found that they were replaced with words that said precisely the opposite. It now read 'that a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiological agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings'.

I then found Popovic had upset Gallo still further in the very next sentence by calling Gallo's theory that a retrovirus caused AIDS an 'assumption'. Gallo deleted this word, replacing it with ‘hypothesis', as can be seen in the clipping (reproduced in book)

Popovic then summarized the tenuous basis of their ‘assumption.' This went: as Myron Essex had found a retrovirus believed to cause in cats a T-cell leukaemia that suppresses the immune system, as Gallo had found in humans a retrovirus HTLV-I similarly said to cause a rare leukaemia, since 30 to 40% of AIDS patients had proteins in their blood similar to those from this retrovirus, and as the putative virus in their blood produced giant cancer cells (‘syncytia') in the laboratory; it was assumed that the AIDS virus was a newly evolved, out-of-Africa, member of the same very small HTLV family of viruses!

But it was immediately clear that Popovic had no intention of testing and proving this theory in this paper. All he went on to report were his attempts to find a way to grow the disguised French virus in a laboratory dish.

Gallo and Popovic were well aware that their earlier efforts to prove their virus (HTLV-3) caused AIDS had ended in failure. That was why Popovic was now working with a disguised French virus. I continued to read the paper with care.

From Gallo's scribbled comments, I was surprised to learn that he clearly expected Popovic to achieve no more than to find a way of growing enough of the disguised French virus to enable them to patent a blood test for it. He never once asked for a test to be included showing it causes AIDS.

Thus in these papers there are no experiments to prove their virus killed T-cells. This was more important than one might think; given to this day no other human retrovirus is known to kill. If HIV were such an exception, if it has a unique capability, then one would expect to find here an effort to prove this.

Reading more widely, I have found scientists still do not understand how HIV can destroy T-Cells. Joseph McCune reported in Nature in 2001; ‘We still do not know how, in vivo [in the patient], the virus destroys CD4+ T cells... Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the loss of CD4+ T cells, some of which seem to be diametrically opposed.'

But, at that time, the early 1980s, Gallo was on a rescue mission. He was trying to rescue his hypothesis that retroviruses were major causes of human diseases. He had failed to prove they were a major cause of cancer. He now wanted to prove they caused AIDS.

As I read on, I began to understand Popovic's difficulties. He explicitly stated they could not test their suspect virus or analyse its genetic code before they found a way to produce enough of it in a laboratory culture for them to experiment with it. In this paper he was thus totally concerned with achieving just this first step.

After failing to produce retroviruses in many cell cultures, Popovic had finally tested a culture that he had found abandoned in the laboratory fridge. He divided this to make a few cultures, and then tested each to see if any would grow the French virus. He was pleased to report that some of these showed signs of retroviral growth. This was the heart of his paper - his great achievement. Nothing more or less.

And how did he judge which culture was the most successful? A table in his report explained that he had worked this out by assessing ‘the amount of released virus' through measuring ‘ RT activity in the culture.'

Now RT, meaning the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase, is naturally part of all our cells as well as of all retroviruses and some other viruses. So, how did Popovic know the RT activity he measured was from a retrovirus? He never explained this. Yet on this depended the success of his modest experiment.

And it was not as if this ‘RT activity' had appeared spontaneously. Popovic had only detected it after adding chemicals to the cells that were known to provoke RT activity. (These he called the ‘T-Cell Growth Factor' or TCGF). He presumed that if these provoked RT activity in the culture, then his virus must be present. He explained: ‘the successful detection and isolation of HTLV was made possible by the discovery of TCGF.'

But Popovic found and noted that, after adding these chemicals, he only detected ‘transient' spikes of RT activity. This frustrated him immensely. He interpreted this as meaning his retrovirus had briefly appeared - and then vanished. He stated (before Gallo edited this): ‘HTLV variants ... can only be detected transiently...'

I had to ask; what if these spikes of RT activity are part of defensive reactions by cells to these chemicals? Why should they be solely linked to a particular retrovirus?

But - I then had another thought. What if the ‘AIDS virus' was in fact a human retrovirus created by our cells to defend them against toxins? In recent times, evidence has been found for retroviruses sometimes being able to repair damaged DNA. (More about this in a later chapter.) Could the ‘HIV' virus be in fact a particle sent out to repair damage caused by drug-based toxins - or damage caused by the diseases common in AIDS cases? This was but a thought, but Popovic had produced no evidence that proved any retroviruses to be doing damage.

Popovic wrote in his paper that, when he examined his cultures with an electron microscope, he saw particles that might be retroviruses. He had centrifuged culture samples, and found RT activity in the band with the right density for retroviruses. So - retroviruses might be present - but which ones? In any case, this did not prove they caused AIDS.

--------------------- continues...

Popovic began his conclusion to his paper with these words: ‘We report here the establishment and characterization of an immortalized T-Cell population which is susceptible to and permissive for HTLV cytopathic variants.'

To my great surprise, this from start to end was all of consequence that Popovic had to report in this ‘key' paper - and he seemingly had got even this wrong by equating RT enzyme activity with the presence of their virus. After noting ‘RT activity' in their cultures, he had felt he had no need to prove anything else before concluding: ‘Thus, the data clearly indicate continuous HTLVIII production by permanently growing T-Cell population in a long term culture.'

But, the very last paragraph of his conclusion was even more revealing. (Please excuse its technical jargon. I will explain.)

‘The transient expression of cytopathic variants of HTLV in cells from AIDS patients and the lack of a proliferate cell system which would be susceptible and permissive for the virus represented major obstacle in detection, isolation and elucidation of the agent of this disease. The establishment of a T-Cell population, which, after virus infection, can continuously grow and produce the virus, provides the possibility for detailed biological, immunological and nucleic acid studies of this agent. ‘

This is the sum total of his claims. Despite the enormous spin that Gallo later put on this paper; Popovic did not claim in it to prove any virus the cause of AIDS! He explained that all he had tried to do was to develop a culture of T-cells that would grow (‘was permissive for') their suspect virus - as the lack of such a culture was ‘a major obstacle' both to finding and studying such a virus. ‘Transient expression' meant no more than that RT activity was intermittent in his culture. His last sentence states that finding such a culture - ‘providing the possibility' for the necessary research to be carried out.

That is it. These were the very last words of his paper - before Gallo rewrote them. They make it crystal clear that all that Popovic claimed to achieve was to have made the vital detailed tests a future ‘possibility'. Without such future studies it would be impossible to identify a virus as causing AIDS, as Popovic well knew. This at last made sense of his earlier statement that the cause of AIDS remained to be discovered. It explained why Popovic's paper contained no experiments designed to prove a virus the cause of AIDS. It explained Gallo's urgent rewriting of the text. If he had not rewritten this paper and made it near impossible to verify, his gamble of announcing a major discovery before he had made it would have been revealed and, without any doubt, would have ended his career.

Thus, in the paper widely credited with proving HIV to cause AIDS, there is nothing of the sort. There is no mention of any experiment carried out to prove this, or even to establish that the HIV virus was in any way ‘cytotoxic'.

If Gallo did fix and spin these papers, this might explain why, against all scientific norms, he afterwards refused samples of his culture and virus to scientists whom he suspected might want to verify his conclusions and imposed on others an outrageous agreement that they would not use them to attempt to repeat these experiments. It may also explain why Gallo documented their experiments so badly, according to the ORI, that it was impossible to repeat them, leaving scientists, and all of us, having to rely on trust that he got things right.

As for AIDS being spread by the sexual transmission of HIV, no evidence at all to support this was presented in the four Science papers. Yet, immediately after these papers appeared, the press described AIDS as caused by a sexually transmitted virus. Was this also the result of spin by Robert Gallo? I would have to search for the evidence. But first, I needed to look at the other documents unearthed by the governmental investigations to see if these might contain evidence that proved HIV dangerous.

The evidence that HIV kills T-Cells

Popovic's paper calls HTLV-3 a 'cytopathic' retrovirus; that is, one that causes degeneration or disease in cells. But when I searched for any evidence in his paper to support this, I could only find the observation that AIDS patients typically have low numbers of ‘Helper' (DC4) T-Cells - with the implied inference that this was because the AIDS virus had killed them.

It is widely known in science that many factors can diminish the numbers of these cells - such as chronic drug addiction, severe malnutrition and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Sometimes even healthy people have low numbers. As I have noted, in 2001 Nature reported that it still was not known how HIV could kill T-cells. In 2006 a paper by Benigno Rodriquez reported that HIV can't be killing more than 4% to 6% of the CD4 cells lost in AIDS cases - in other words not enough by itself to cause AIDS.

Popovic noted in his paper that there was a CD4-CD8 ‘reverse ratio', before Gallo deleted it. Popovic meant by this that when Helper CD4 T-Cells cells fall in number, the population of Killer CD8 T-cells goes up commensurately, and vice versa. We now know our immune system can change CD4s into CD8s as needed. It needs only a very small surface change to them. This too might explain why sometimes there are fewer CD4 cells. It may simply be that we need more CD8s.

In some frustration I have since searched for earlier papers in which Gallo or Popovic might have proved LAV, renamed as HTLV-3, able to kill or as cytopathic - but there are none, utterly none. The Institut Pasteur likewise seems not to have proved this. Neither had Popovic or Gallo proved their own virus, HTLV3, able to kill T-Cells.

All I could discover of any possible relevance is that, whenever Gallo tried to grow T-cell cultures before 1983, the T-cells died. Many factors could have caused this, such as the wrong nutrients, bacterial contamination, or mould - the latter found by the investigators to be contaminating some of his cultures.

Gallo did mention later that cells in the culture sometimes seemed to be enlarged and clumped - but that was a consequence of them being ‘immortalised' by being made cancerous, not of them dying.

So, did the Science papers contain any firm evidence for HIV killing blood cells? I had to conclude, after a thorough search, that no evidence at all of this was presented in these papers, despite Gallo adding the word ‘cytopathic' to this Popovic paper's title. But, this omission is surely something anyone can confirm - so why are so few asking these vital questions?

‘HIV is not in Gallo's pictures of HIV.'

A letter I found preserved in the inquiry records contained further disturbing evidence. It was from Dr Matthew Gonda, the Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, replying to a letter from Gallo of March 1984 that had asked him to prepare for publication EM micrographs of the ‘enclosed samples' that ‘contain HTLV' [HIV].

Gonda's reply is dated March 26th, just four days before these images were needed for publication. Gonda told him: 'I would like to point out that the ‘particles' ... are in debris of a degenerated cells' and 'at least 50 per cent smaller' than they should be if they were retroviruses. He concluded: 'I do not believe any of the particles photographed are HTLV I, II or III.' He devastatingly added that: 'No other extracellular ‘virus-like' particles were observed.' Gonda copied this letter to Popovic.

Discovering this was an enormous surprise because the Science articles, as sent for publication four days later, included four micrographs ‘of HTLV-III' credited to Gonda. In the accompanying text, Gallo declared all these particles of the right shape and correct size for HTLV-III - although close examination reveals most are of different shapes and sizes. (See the images below - HTLV-III is said to be the roundish dots bordering the vastly bigger cell.)

If these are the same images - then, for Gallo to say these are definitely of HTLV-III was highly unethical and most misleading since he had received Gonda's expert advice to the contrary.

(the chapter continues to cite other similar letters that cast doubts on the veracity of these key HIV papers.... later chapters of the book look at recent HIV research and finds the errors continued.)

‘The Dynamics of CD4+ T-cell Depletion in HIV Disease' by Joseph McCune in Nature, April 19, 2001

Benigno Rodriguez et al., published 27th September 2006 in the Journal of the American Medical Association

Letter from Matthew Gonda, Head Electron Microscopy Laboratory; to Mika Papovic (stet), 26th March 1984

Quoted in Crewdson, page 503. The appeal was heard by the Research Integrity Adjudications Panel

‘The Dynamics of CD4+ T-cell Depletion in HIV Disease' by Joseph McCune in Nature, April 19, 2001

Dingell Congressional Inquiry Staff Report. Around mid-February [1984] further work was done by Gallo's laboratory to try to get a rabbit antiserum that was specific to the virus, but without the virus being first truly isolated and analyzed, this was still an impossible task. There is no laboratory record of such work being done - and Popovic explicitly stated in March 1984 that this work had not been done. (In his paper as he had prepared it for publication in Science prior to Gallo editing it.

Francoise Barre-Sinoussi et al. (including. L. Montagnier). 1983. Isolation of a T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Science 220: 868-871

Professor Etienne De Harven has pointed out to the author that the microphotographs Montagnier produced of this virus show it as grown on birth cord lymphocytes. The 1983 paper stated: ‘These were detection of: ‘umbilical cord lymphocytes showed characteristic immature particles with dense crescent (C- type) budding at the plasma membrane...' Barre-Sinoussai et al. Isolation of T-lymphotropic retrovirus from a patient at risk for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Science 1983;220: 868-71.

Interview with Djamel Tahi-1997. Text of video interview with Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute July 18th 1997. Continuum 1998; 5:30-34. The original French is given in a later footnote.

Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Dingell Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives

Popovic et al.; Science, 225, 1984, pp. 497-500.

How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth

The nature of scientific activity has changed dramatically over the last half century, and the objectivity and rigorous search for evidence that once defined it are being abandoned. Increasingly, this text argues, dogma has taken the place of authentic science.

This study examines how conflicts of interest--both institutional and individual--have become pervasive in the science world, and also explores the troubling state of research funding and flaws of the peer-review process. It looks in depth at the dominance of several specific theories, including the Big Bang cosmology, human-caused global warming, HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs. In a scientific environment where distinguished experts who hold contrary views are shunned, this book is an important contribution to the examination of scientific heterodoxies.

About the Author

Henry H. Bauer is professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of arts and sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech). The author of numerous books, including a three-volume examination of scientific heterodoxies, he lives in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Paperback

Publisher: McFarland & Company; Original edition (Aug 30 2012)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0786463015

ISBN-13: 978-0786463015

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Invité
Répondre à ce sujet…

×   Vous avez collé du contenu avec mise en forme.   Supprimer la mise en forme

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Votre lien a été automatiquement intégré.   Afficher plutôt comme un lien

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Chargement

×
×
  • Créer...