HIV/AIDS and the Perth Group. Was:"AIDS Treatment News"...

Leonard Pattenden ddlpatte at
Sun Sep 27 00:54:22 EST 1998

G'day John and my Cc's:

John, in future can you please leave a line space or a name above your
added comment as it is difficult to see your next arguement without
re-reading pages of documents already read, the jb is sometimes
hard to see. Your response is easily missed. I have also correlated
several of your responses to this one message for convenience, including
the personal one you sent me re: the Perth Group. I am sorry to everyone
for it's length, but I am sure many will find it interesting.

On 25 Sep 1998 johnburgin at wrote:

> >> That's right Carlton, I'm far too ignorant to waste time arguing with.
> >> So why don't you pick on something really big and ugly.  The facts.

> >We are still waiting for you to post the facts.

> jb

We were talking AZT causes AIDS. This is a PAG document saying HIV doesn't
exist. I thought you believed the virus existed (as does Duesberg) but is
harmless? However I will answer this "proof". First of all, it is a
statement by the PAG, is unreferenced and is general and sweeping. It says
things like "Epidemiological data does not support", but does not cite the
epidemiological data. I also point you to the fact that in one line they
state "The existence of the "human immunodeficiency virus" must therefore,
be called into question." and in the lines immediately following it they
conclude: " the "HIV-AIDS hypothesis" has failed." Bit of a quantum leap
from questionable to failed isn't it? If you are questioning it, you must
first have scientific investigation to answer your question before
a conclusion can be drawn. Please John, science is facts which can be
examined which constitutes proof, not a statement to WHO without even one
reference. I will further provide references to the existance of HIV below
in response to your personal e-mail to me John.

Date: 25 Sep 1998 20:32:12 GMT
From: johnburgin at
Newsgroups: bionet.immunology,,
Subject: Re: "AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

>Please post statistics showing AZT causes AIDS, especially uncorrelated to
>HIV infection.


This "evidence" has no statistics but merely tries to discredit the
Concorde study by stating it wasn't a double blind trial. 


This one is about concorde again. There is no statistics here that AZT
causes AIDS.


this is the same site as above.

>Which postulate of Koch's has not been fulfilled John?

none of them,
In a key paper on tuberculosis in 1884, Koch spelled out the three
criteria for proving a microbe guilty of causing a disease:
1)First, the germ must be found growing abundantly in every patient
and every diseased tissue.
2)Second, the germ must be isolated and grown in the laboratory
3)Third, the purified germ must cause the disease again in another
Three strikes, you're out.

Well first lets get dates and Koch's postulates right shall we? From the
text - "Biology of Microorganisms" (7th ed) Brock et al 1994.

Chapter 1 section 1.6 A Brief History of Microbiology: 

" 1876, Koch studied anthrax....Koch established by careful
microscopy that the bacteria were always present in the blood .... however
...association...did not prove it actually caused the disease." 
What Koch did - Koch took some blood and injected healthy animals showing
it caused the disease. He did this 20 times. The 20th animal died just as
rapidly as the first. each time, Koch showed by microscopy that the dying
animal contained anthrax. Koch went further; He found he could culture the
bacteria outside the animal in nutrient fluids. This formed Kochs
Postulates, which are:

"1. The organism should be constantly present in animals suffering from
the disease and should not be present in healthy individuals."

It does not say in every patient and diseased tissue. We certainly have
statistical correlation. For HIV and AIDS.

"2. The organism must be cultivated in pure culture away from the animal

We agree with that one. Been done many times over and is now routine.

"3. Such a culture, when inoculated into susceptible animals, should
initiate the characteristic disease symptoms."

Susceptible animals being the key words here John, not in any old animal,
as certain diseases are not pathogenic in diverse animals. HIV being one
as HIV is specialised to infect human co-receptor such as CXCR-4 and
CCR-5 etc. These are different on different animals (eg monkeys, cats). In
fact these determinant can be changed on the HIV-SIV-FIV viruses
forming what we call chimeras which can then be infective. Please visit
medline to confirm. So realistically the only susceptible animal to date
for HIV is man. So needle-sticks leading to AIDS could be considered as
evidence (not necessarily "proof" as we need statistically significant
numbers. However the ethics of such a "roll up your sleeve" is not even
open to debate). One possible means is constantly observed pathogenesis of
the agents in human cell culture. Again we see this routinely in the labs. 

"4. The organism should be reisolated from these experimental animals and
cultured again in the laboratory, after which it should still be the same

This is missing from your list and has been done in the case of
needle-sticks at the CDC. So though, as Carlton pointed out - Koch's
postulates are not completely satisfactory as we know viruses weren't
around, and they do not provide a good basis in all cases (eg Kock's own 
problems fulfilling the postulates) we see they do provide a good working
model for viruses and indeed their is evidence HIV fulfills all the
postulates. Again I ask for proof against this data so we can start
swapping scientific papers. I have evidence to defend these points.

>You should clarify you are a dentist, in this forum some might get the
>impression you are a physician.

So, since I am a dentist, you are assuming what?  Are you now going to
assume that a dentist is not "qualified" to investigate, question and
repudiate, if need be, the information that you proclaim to be beyond
reproach?  Are you sure Ptolmey was an ancestor of yours?  I'm sure
that many of your dental colleagues would take serious offense to
being placed anywhere but on the same professional level as
physicians. Labels never concerned me, but they do piss off many
people that I know when denigrated in the fashion as you attempt to
do. My brother is a physician, my sister is a nurse, I have been on
the staff of 2 hospitals which didn't seem concerned about my level of
understanding of scientific fact, rather, they request my services on
a regular basis when they don't know what to do with medical diseases
related to dental origin.

Absolutely not! I denigrate nothing, many got the impression you were an
MD treating people with HIV, i was clarifying what you obviously would
not. However, you should read more before you reply. My complete statement
included the following:

 Of course this does not negate your
>arguements, but some scientific sources would be desirable. To date your
>arguements have merely been words in a vacuum.

I want scientific evidence John.

Date: 25 Sep 1998 20:33:53 GMT
From: johnburgin at
Newsgroups: bionet.immunology,,
Subject: Re: "AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

ps.  Had a nice chat with Val Turner, M.D., your country.  Seems to
disagree with you on a scientific basis very strongly.  Sure you can
handle him?jb

I can handle him. Can he handle me? I think not, and this proves it. 
I assume you are refering to this mail that you sent me:

Sent mail:-
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:11:58 -0500
From: "John B Burgin, DDS" <johnburgin at>
To: Leonard Pattenden <l.pattenden at>
Subject: where are you, Lenny?

Why didn't you answer Val? john

        Re: information on Leonard Pattenden
        Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:14:56 +0800
        Val Turner <vturner at>
        "John B Burgin, DDS" <johnburgin at>

Dear John,

Leonard Pattenden wants to conduct a debate with the Perth group on the
HIV theory of AIDS.  We responded to this request by pointing out that we
have written several papers disputing the HIV theory and have invited him
to respond to specific points in our papers OR to write to the editors of
the journals where we have published.  That's as far as it's got.  We've
never debated because he has never responded either way with his

It is true that there are no HEALS in Australia.  I believe that one was
set up in Sydney but at least one of the instigators died. I think that 
was a few years ago.  Australia is incredibly conservative and it would
not surprise me if HEAL did not get a look in here. The OZ HIV authorities
do not tolerate insurrection one little bit. Even journalists are afraid
to cross their paths.  But, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Best wishes,

Val Turner
--------------------------------------------- end message.

First let me say that "one died" is Val's heresay, I have also heard their
was only two members from HEAL, all of which is rot! HEAL is playing
"cover up". Do you seriously believe that the Australian gay community, 
having above average intelligence, the worlds largest gathering of
celebration of their identity - being the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Marde Gra
- involving people from all over the world (including HEAL), are going to
be "conservative" not to listen to HEAL or follow it's philosophy, but
sooner take the HIV=AIDS hypothesis? Do you honestly feel OZ authorities
in the HIV community exist? Who are they? Do you feel that journalists who
interview neo-nazis who say Jews were not killed in concentration camps,
Pauline Hanson - our own Nazi, cultists who claim to talk to whales,
report Malaysian/Indonesian strife with guns at their heads and
reports against the media boys who own the very stations these are
reporters work for - are actually afraid to cross paths with these 
mythical "authorities"?

Secondly, I assume you sent this to me quietly as you believed it was
actually true. That was kind of you to consider allowing me to "save
face". However, I have nothing to hide and have always been honest and Val
is not truthful in this instance. Obviously he didn't think you would send
it on, but here is the proof: 

In an exchange on the NG Steve Harris pointed out that
the SPECTRA papers - the Perth Group grasp onto as proof of how to isolate
a virus - is false, as no virus was isolated in the SPECTRA papers. I
posted the following, note the Cc was to Val Turner. I have made Val aware
of both mine and Dr Harris's comments regarding their work. Unfortunately
for Val, their exists an archive of this at dejanews, and I also sent a
copy of my criticisms to Duesberg. Why don't you contact him and ask him
if I have criticised the Perth Group, you claim to have met him and
visited his house. I'm sure you have his e-mail address. Now John, in
light of this evidence, what exactly were you saying about "no conscience"

You can view this message and the related discussion by following this link: 
recnum=%3cPine.OSF.3.95.980724121044.23533G-100000 at
We hope to see you soon at Deja News, the discussion network.

I have reproduced two emails from the exchange below. As always John, I'm
still waiting for the dissidents to come to town. Have a day all!

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 11:43:10 +1000
From: Leonard Pattenden <ddlpatte at>
Cc: vturner at
Subject: Re: SPECTRA and the Perth Group

To Steve, Greg and Val;

On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 gnigh at wrote:

> In article <6os81p$5k6 at>,
>   sbharris at B. Harris) wrote:
> >    The people at Continuum are liars about Pasteur Institute retroviral
> > isolation standards.  I invite informed discussion from anybody who'd
> > like to discuss or disagree with me on this point.  I would especially
> > like to hear from Lanka, Turner, or Papadopulos.
> >
> >                                       Steve Harris, M.D.

This is very apparent.
> I have word from Dr. Turner that the Perth Group would be quite happy to
> repond to any criticisms that you have of their work, especially with respect
> to any problems you have with their reference to the article you mention
> here. The very simple and reasonable request they make is that the criticisms
> against them be submitted in a letter to any of the journals in which they
> have published their work.

This request is hypocritical as the PAG has *NEVER* published their
criticisms in the journals where their stave originated from. When this
same offer was put to me by Val I smelt a rat. IMHO this is a means for
them to generate more articles for Continuum etc and is just a path to
their ends. Val has said he will defend his work anywhere to me. Why not
here Val? Do it publicly. Many of us have quite a few questions we'd like
to put to you. Or is it easier to read the critique, research for months
and then come back again? Is that they way you tick? Is time what you
need? I remember reading a post here of what was published before (Lanka 
and Steve). I remember the statement "all GP's have a copy of the Merck
Index", the absurdity of this was pointed out by Steve and the retort was
"Ahem! They do!." What nonsense! Come do it here, or are you afraid of
us? Something to hide? Or can't we be led like sheep as for Continuum's

> As you might know, Dr. Harris, this is standard scientific procedure. As you
> are a bulldog for science, I look forward to your taking them to task in the
> journal of your choice (meaning a journal they have *published* in, not
> Skeptic).

Actually can you point me to a manual or journal where this is written as
scientific procedure Greg? Or are you parroting Val? The truth is
scientist tend to write down what procedure is, and this is not a
scientific procedure at all. Just a scam from Val and you swallowed
the hook. Steve's ego is supposed to make him go for this, and you are
gleening it. So I take it you are also aware this is a lie.
Dr Holzman has already commented on this as well. His statements are
> The ball is in your court. Either *you* enter into an "informed discussion"
> about your objections with the Perth Group, or *you* shut up.

He already has Greg. The sound of silence from the PAG is very loud. They
are aware of the statement and know where to find him.

 If your
> objections are so rock-solid, expose them for all to see.

He has. This NG has greater readership than Continuum.

 If you aren't
> willing to raise your objections in a scientific forum,

Continuum is a M*A*G*A*Z*I*N*E. It is in no way a scientific forum.

 then there is no
> reason to believe that what you *say* are valid objections really *are*.

Nice try Greg. But your shallow attempt is just that. The criticism stands
and the PAG is silent. Come on Val, what are you really afraid of? 

> Your call.

I don't think Val has hit it back over the net yet Greg. You know where to
find me Val.


Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:25:23 +1000
From: Leonard Pattenden <ddlpatte at>
Cc: vturner at
Subject: Re: SPECTRA and the Perth Group

On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 gnigh at wrote:

> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.980723113129.19969A-100000 at>,
>   Leonard Pattenden <ddlpatte at> wrote:
> [snip]
> Oops. I almost got caught up in the endless "You're wrong" "No, *you're
> wrong*" that this newsgroup has been for the past few years. I'll pass, Len.
> Be proud that you won the shouting match.

Greg, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. But here is
something to consider:

The PAG states Virology 230 shows HIV has not been isolated.

Virology 230: 125-133 and 134-144 (1997).

Yet one group claimed removal of >95% of the contaminants within that

(2) There exists papers which show HIV isolation independent of Gallo and

J of Gen.Virol (1995) 76: 1155-1163.

(3) From cross referencing (1) there is a paper to show purification
greater than has been achieved for any mammalian virus.

AIDS research and Human Retroviruses (1995) 11:1003-1006.

J.Virol (1996) 70: 7734-7743.

With a picture of HIV *ALL BY ITSELF* in the AIDS Res paper. How did the
PAG miss that? Do you think they are being honest? Or did they just miss

Val has stated:

Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:48:02 +0800
From: Val Turner <vturner at>
To: Leonard Pattenden <l.pattenden at>
Subject: Re: HIV isolation.

Dear Dr. Pattenden,

Usually a scientist who finds fault with someone's else science writes to
the editor of the journal where the scientist has published.

(Continuum in this case - Len)

 However, we are quite willing to make an exception and debate our work
anywhere you want. For this to happen you must first read our papers and
tell us where we have gone wrong.


Stop jumping around and splitting hairs. Let's cut to the chase. People
with honesty and integrity have nothing to fear. And to be corrected and
admit when wrong is a good thing. I read that in Continuum, or was that
article meant to be only for Duesberg?


More information about the Immuno mailing list