LETTER
TO SCIENCE
Via http://www.submit2science.org/ws/begin.asp
(I want to submit a letter to the editor)Submission acknowledged by editors on August 25, 2009 via email (ID 137063)
Open Letter to Editor-in-Chief and AAAS CEO
Science/AAAS
1200 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC, 20005
To: Bruce Alberts, Editor-in-Chief, Science
Cc: Alan Leschner, CEO, AAAS
“Frankly speaking, I
never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for
the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No one
uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as
hen’s teeth.” Robert
C Gallo (6)
The following “fresh look” at Gallo et al is derived from heightened scrutiny of Science V224, 497-508. Their claims leading to the classification of a human retrovirus originally known as HTLV III/LAV (1) as a “unique cytopathic variant” were not adequately peer-reviewed.
It was their and your rush to publish
and run past crucial details that weakened its conclusion: Detection, Isolation and Continuous
Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. (2)
No “continuous production of
cytopathic retroviruses” was demonstrated.
Is reverse
transcriptase activity a valid surrogate for “continuous HTLV III production”?
The caption to Figure 2 (2, 499)
describes how the “peak fraction” was measured for maximum “reverse transcripase (RT)
activity” - incorporating nucleotides into a growing polymer chain - in the “1.16 g/ml
sucrose density band”. Apparently. Peer review overlooked the nature of the synthetic template
(poly(A)-oligo dT [15]) described in these captions. It is “the adenylate-containing strand” or
the “synthetic homopolymer” polyriboadenylate annealed with oligothymidylate (3).
What does the dash before “oligo”
mean? That a chemical polymer not a biomolecule (a) has a “primer” (15 T’s) hydrogen-bonded at
its end to kick start and maintain a polymerase reaction that’s roughly 3 orders of
magnitude higher than an “endogenous” RT reaction (b) where true “information transduction”
or “transcription” takes place. The template is referred to as a “homopolymer”, meaning it’s a “Johnny-one-note”
not recognized as RNA by living organisms.
Numerous kinetic comparisons made by
70’s RNA “tumor virus” researchers with “endogenous” RT experiments produce
the fact of much greater RT “activity” with synthetic templates.
Was a virion counting
procedure fraudulently stated and referenced?
This is answered by commenting on two
items from 2, page 499:
(1) “Both virus production and cell
viability of the infected clone H4 (H4/HTLV III) were monitored for several months. Although
virus production fluctuated (Fig 2a), culture fluids harvested and assayed at approximately
14 day intervals consistently showed particulate RT activity which has been
followed for over 5 months…Thus, the data show that the permanently growing T-cell population
can continuously produce HTLV-III.”
The reference to “particulate RT
activity” is not proven because no “endogenous” assays are documented. According to “working
standards” of retrovirology, the evidence from synthetic template reactions was based on
reverse transcription being unique to retroviruses. In retrospect, this was an assumption not
recognized as an “article of faith” by the lights of current science.
(2) “As shown in Fig. 2b, the highest
RT activity was shown at a density of 1.16g/ml, which is similar to other retroviruses. The
highest RT activity was found in the fractions with the largest amount of virus, AS DETERMINED BY
ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (c). The actual number of viral particles determined by this
method was estimated to be about 10^11 per liter of culture fluid.”
Thanks to the now available I. Toplin
paper (Tumor Virus Purification Using Zonal Rotors; Spectra 1973: 225-235), we can better
understand the working standards of retroviral isolation that guided experiments 1970
to 1986.
The reference of Popovic/Gallo and
Toplin for viral particle count is the SAME (4). Toplin gives more precision in description: “We
adjust the viral level to 2 x 10^11 particles per ml using rapid quantitative negative
stain electron microscopy to MEASURE the concentration”. (c) The Toplin paper
includes type of EM (Fig 6, pg 231) that can be used to determine particle count based on “double
sucrose zonal centrifugation”.
Thus, the EM Popovic/Gallo refer to is
clearly not Fig 1 (pg 498), Fig 2 (pg 501) or Fig 4 (pg 504) which include “cells”.
The March 26, 1984 Gonda to Popovic
letter - “I do not believe any of these particles are HTLV I, II, or III” – implies missing “micrographs
for publication” that “Dr Gallo wanted”. (8)
Is there a
deceptively NOT presented or missing EM for the required back-up of the particle count?
Thus, nothing in the four papers
published in V224, 497-508 validates that particle number.
We know from this letter that Gonda
looked at EMs sent to him by Popovic.
Was Gonda’s examination to check the
particle count?
Finally, subsequent
publications did not verify a singular isolation by unique-sequence method completed by
three groups (Gallo - Levy - Montagnier) in 1985. (5)
Conclusion: there is
an initial misrepresentation in V224 of “HIV” = unique cytopathic retrovirus “isolation
and continuing production” for your consideration.
Eugene Semon, BChE, PE (retired)
160 Bergen Avenue, Apt 4
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
genesemon@hotmail.com
NOTES
a. Because the polymer
contains no information.
b. Means, according to
convention, RNA template directed.
c. emphasis added, Gallo’s
ref 36, Toplin’s ref 2 and reference 4 below
REFERENCES
1. Hahn et al; Science V232 (20 June
1986) 1548 – 1553: “Genetic heterogeneity has been firmly established as a prominent
characteristic of the AIDS virus, HTLV-III/LAV.”
2. Popovic, Sarngadharan, Read, Gallo;
Detection, Isolation and Continuous Production of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III)
from Patients with AIDS and Pre-AIDS. Science V224, (4 May 1984), 497-500
3. McCaffrey, Smoling and Baltimore;
DNA POLYMERASES IN LYMPHOID CELLS, pg 247- 255, in Rolf Neth, Robert C Gallo, Sol
Spiegelman, Frederick Stohlman, eds: Modern Trends in Human Leukemia, J.F. Lehrnanns
Verla München 1974. http://www.wilsede-science connections.com/books/moderntrends/trends1/005%20-%20Nucleic%20Acid%20Metabolism%20in%20Leukemic%20Cells/247%20-%20DNA%20Polymerases%20in%20Lymphoid%20Cells.pdf
4. Monroe and Brandt; 1970. Rapid
semiquantitative method for screening large numbers of virus samples by negative staining
electron microscopy. Appl. Microbiol. 20: 259 –262
5. Leitner et al; Yet Another Subtype
of HIV-1? AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses,11, Number 8, 1995, 995-997:
”The growth of unclassified sequences
indicates that it is becoming increasingly difficult to categorize the HIV-1 sequences by the
proposed criteria (env/gag “star phylogeny”) … (W)e may eventually be faced with a
continuum of genetic variants.”
“(I)t is possible that future studies
will reveal important immunological and biological differences between genetic subtypes.”
(NB, see 7)
6. Gallo Testimony at Parenzee, 1306; http://garlan.rethinkingaids.info/Cases/Parenzee/Gallo.html
7. Henderson et al, Direct Identification of Class II Histocompatibility DR Proteins in Preparations of Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type III, JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY, 61, 2, Feb. 1987, p. 629-632; Kolegraff et al, Characterization and Role of Lentivirus-Associated Host Proteins, Experimental Biology and Medicine 231:252-263 (2006); Gurer et al, Specific Incorporation of Heat Shock Protein 70 Family Members into Primate Lentiviral Virions, J. Virol. (2002) 76, 4666-4670: “Hsp70 was roughly equimolar with pol-encoded proteins in virions”.
8. Cited Documents, M. Gonda to M. Popovic (March 26, 1984 http://www.sciencefictions.net/documents.html
RESPONSE – rejected for publication on September
23, 2009 (BTW did not claim to be a doctor :)
From: science_editors@aaas.org
MS# 1181147
Dear Dr. Semon, Thank you for sending a Letter-to-the-Editor to Science. We have read over your contribution, but will not be able to publish it in the magazine. We are letting you know as a courtesy in case you wanted to seek another outlet for your letter.
Please do not reply to this email, as it will not be read by Science. Unfortunately the volume of submissions precludes specific discussions about individual submitted letters.
Sincerely,The Editors
Science Magazine
