View Full Version : OH MY GAWD! (ame-g193)

November 21st, 2002, 01:50 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Hi Folks,<BR>I just had the MOST intense discussion here at a coffee shop with two medical students who are about to graduate. They saw the sticker QuestionAIDS.com on the back of my portable computer and asked me what that was about. So of course I told them.<BR><BR>Well, we got into the MOST unbelievalbly intense discussion. One of the guys was like, I ve been doing research on HIV and lab work with it for several years now. We can SEE it on the surface of cells!! I asked him how he knew it was HIV. He said, because we can see it infecting T4Cells and ignoring other cells or something like that. He goes, we have the genetic sequence of it!! I continued to press him about how they knew it was HIV. I tried to explain how it was never isolated by Gallo or Montagnier and they said, well, so, that was a long time ago.<BR><BR>When I said in AIDS research they use the word isolation to mean detection of reverse transcription and the detection of p24. He said, well, RT is specific to retroviruses. I said, no it s not. It happens all over the place. That was known back in the 70 s. He insisted if it did happen elsewhere in the body it was very small.<BR><BR>We got into the false positive thing and of course they said it happens VERY rarely, almost never. I asked them how they know the difference between a false positive and a real positive. Well, the Western Blot tells us that. And he said they are using a new PCR test that detects the genetic snippets that also use this new flourescence system. I whipped out my list of 70 things that are shown to react with the test and they re like, well, where are your references. I said, right here . Well, they re probably not legit. They don t mean anything.<BR><BR>Yikes, it was intense. But I held my ground. <BR><BR>The one guy kept saying millions of people are going to die becuase of this information! You realize that don t you!! <BR><BR>So then we got into the drugs. I brought up AZT and he said, well, it only inhibits HIV but doesn t destroy healthy cells. I said, really, well I do know that it doesn t tryphosphorylate, so how can it possibly be inhibiting viral replication. I said, what AZT does do is screw up the mitochondria to such a degree that some people die of suddent lactic acid buildup. Well, it does this and that and you don t understand how it really works, etc. So I brought up the Concorde Trials and they re like, well, so. You don t know what you re talking about.<BR><BR>I brougth up the prostitute problem. One of the guys nearly jumped across the table in anger at me. He said, what, you re crazy. Half the prostitutes in South Africa are dying of AIDS!! Youre insane.<BR><BR>Then we got back to the tests and I talked about the problems of standardization. There were also two other non med students sitting at the table asking questions. I asked them how dogs blood could be reacting on a test that is supposedly specific to HIV, unless of the ccourse the dogs had HIV. Or how immune bred mice could be negative at birth and then test positive when they were full grown. I asked how it was that by simply extracting your own blood, irradiating it and the retransfussing it that you could test positive on the test? The one guy said, well there are all these differences between species so that doesn t mean anything. I said, well, but if those proteins in the HIV test are specific to HIV, how could the dogs be reacting to them? Or the mice? I kept saying I would produce the documentation.<BR><BR>Of course they brought up the epidemiological association thing. I said, well, why is AIDS still primarily confined to the original risk groups. They re like, it is NOT. Women are the fastest growing group. I said, no, their percentage between men and women has increased some but the ACTUAL numbers of women has steadily been decreasing. <BR><BR>We went around and around and around. It was like a big hellish merry-go-round. A bunch of times they just laughed at me like I was the biggest idiot and didn t know a thing I was talking about. <BR><BR>Chris<BR></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 21st, 2002, 09:53 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Good job Chris, now you can understand that as a physician who graduated <br>from a top medical school in the country, I can&#39;t practice anymore... You <br>either believe their stupidity and lack of proper scientific evaluation - <br>free from pharmaceutical pressure - or you retire - I&#39;ve chosen the latter - <br>good riddance - I can look in the mirror knowing that I&#39;m not doing harm to <br>patients... THEY CAN&#39;T... Craig<br><br><br><br>&gt;From: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;Reply-To: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;To: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;Subject: OH MY GAWD!<br>&gt;Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:11:31 -0800<br>&gt;<br>&gt;We attempted to deliver this message to you with HTML formatting. However, <br>&gt;your e-mail program does not support HTML-enhanced messages. Please go to <br>&gt;your E-mail Settings for this group and change your E-mail Preference to <br>&gt;&quot;Text only&quot;.<br>&gt;http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/_emailsettings.msnw<br>&gt;<br>&gt;MSN Groups<br>&gt;<br><br><br>__________________________________________________ _______________<br>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* <br>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail<br><br></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 21st, 2002, 10:37 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Chris:<p>It seems to me like you have been able to absorb a tremendous amountof information in a relatively short period of time and that you are ableto present this information fairly readily. GOOD JOB! You should be proudof yourself.</p><p>I also wanted to make a SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT TO THOSE OF YOU ON AUTOMATICE-MAIL NOTIFICATION:</p><p>I seem to be have CHRONIC problems accessing&nbsp; <a target=_top href="http://www.aidsmythexposed.com">THEWEBSITE FOR OUR FORUM</a> . Something about the server for msn.com beingbusy. I don t know if anybody else is experiencing this problem. At anyrate, I WOULD NOW SUGGEST THAT WE MAKE POSTS AND REPLY TO POSTED MESSAGESVIA E-MAIL instead of trying to go to the forum itself on the web. I amsorry for any inconvenience, and I will change my suggestion on the forum shomepage as soon as the server at msn.com allows me access to it again!</p><p>Rod Knoll,<br><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a></FONT></p></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 22nd, 2002, 02:23 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV>Hey Chris and All,</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Here are some links to recent discussions on the newly revamped </DIV> <DIV>VirusMyth message board on specificity of the HIV antibody tests, </DIV> <DIV>viral isolation,&nbsp;and&nbsp;some discussion about the&nbsp;alleged HIV genome.&nbsp;&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><A target=_top href="http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=286#comment">http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=286#comment</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><A target=_top href="http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=258#comment">http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=258#comment</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><A target=_top href="http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=253#comment">http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=253#comment</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><A target=_top href="http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=223#comment">http://www.polder.net/aids/forums/node.php?id=223#comment</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Post some of the messages from&nbsp;the VirusMyth&nbsp;forum here if you </DIV> <DIV>find it especially useful-- along&nbsp;with&nbsp;any of your own&nbsp;commentary.&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Kelly</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 22nd, 2002, 02:31 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Hi SeaDoc,<br>You know, it was interesting because at one point when we were &#39;chatting&#39;<br>about treating AIDS, they kept extolling the virtues off the antiretrovirals.<br>At one point I said I know of a doctor in town who treats patients using<br>alternative methods, simple things like supplementing them with selenium and<br>natural elements to rebuild the immune system. One of the guys said, he&#39;s a<br>real doctor? I said yes, an M.D. He hisses, you realize it&#39;s medical<br>malpractice to NOT prescribe the antiviral drugs. He could be shut down for<br>giving his patients selenium!! <br><br>That blew my mind. I thought, holy shit, it&#39;s ok to poison someone with these<br>drugs, but give them a powerful antioxidant and you&#39;re in danger of losing<br>your license.<br><br>That&#39;s just plain sick!<br><br>Chris<br></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 22nd, 2002, 02:42 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Well, I felt like I was pulling out all the stops trying to combat these guys.<br>I mean to be honost I did feel intimidated by them. I mean, they have all this<br>medical training and here I am trying to refute them. One of the guys was<br>really condescending to me.<br><br>For instance, he was talking about people who dont&#39; seem to get HIV and he<br>goes, &quot;we&#39;ve found this thing on their T4Cells that prevents HIV from<br>attaching and so they don&#39;t get HIV&#39;, how do you deal with that?!<br><br>I was sitting there thinking, crap, I would give my right arm to have Val<br>Turner sitting next to me. I&#39;m sure he could just exterminate these guys a<br>million times more effectively than me.<br><br>But it does bring up a question for me. Obviously these guys are using<br>SOMETHING in their labs that are convincing them that they are seeing HIV<br>&#39;infecting only T4 cells&#39; etc. I understand very well the Perth group<br>arguments about HIV not being isolated (which didn&#39;t phase these guys at all).<br>Like the one guy keps insisting that they had several HIV genomes sequences<br>and they knew the structure of HIV and this and that. I just kept hammering<br>them on how they actually knew it was HIV and not something else considering<br>it hadn&#39;t been isolated, but again they couldn&#39;t see a connection to what they<br>were working on in their labs. <br><br>I mean, I&quot;ve read a lot of the Perth Group&#39;s work and can&#39;t for aminute<br>believve they haven&#39;t taken all this into account. I mean, you don&#39;t get the<br>title BioPhysicist wtihout having had a bit of training along the way you<br>know.<br><br>Anyway, I&#39;m sort of rambling. I just hate these types of encounters because<br>they tend to leave me with doubts/questions.<br><br>Chris<br></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 22nd, 2002, 08:30 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Chris:<BR><BR>I can see this may not end soon. I don t mind answering questions, but, I have to honest, I am not convinced that going back and forth with your continuous questions here is the best use of this forum. Nor is it perhaps the most considerate use of precious data space in the e-mail inboxes of our forum members who have requested that they receive e-mails of the messages that have been posted here. I would much prefer to reserve this forum for answering PRESSING questions, particularly those posted by people who have been personally impacted by bogus diagnoses and for posting important notices for activist activities.<BR><BR>At any rate, in answer to your question: while you have obviously absorbed a tremendous amount of information, you may find it difficult to focus on the big picture. It s actually VERY simple. Notwithstanding the PROFOUND differences in the definitions of "HIV isolation" between AIDS industry apologists and dissidents (see again <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vtcorweiss.htm">THIS EXCHANGE BETWEEN TURNER AND WEISS</a>), there is no proof that "HIV" HAS been isolated. This fact has impacted ALL of "HIV/AIDS" research. In the lab, the various concoctions that have been called "HIV" contain various and sundry chemicals that are NOT normally found in the blood and/or are created using CANCEROUS cell lines not found under normal conditions. These NON-specific and highly UNNATURAL methods are the ONLY ways "HIV" is EVER gleamed in the lab. PERIOD. This issue impacts research into BOTH "HIV" diagnostic tests AND the so-called "anti-HIV" drugs which are generated from gene sequences that have been ascribed to "HIV" which can usually be traced back to Montagnier s or Gallo s original problematic so-called "isolates" from the early 80 s.<BR><BR>The "thing" these little medical nimrods told you about is a gene deletion (a deleted or missing gene) called, I believe "CCR5". When present, this gene is supposed to be responsible for helping the "HIV" virus attach to the cell; never mind the fact that, as the Perth Group points out, there is NO PROOF that ANY of the particles CLAIMED to be "HIV" can be infectious. See again: <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/ephemophilia.htm">THIS THOROUGH PAPER ON HIV "ISOLATION"</a> for evidence that "gp120", which is supposedly the "HIV" protein that attaches to the CD4 T-cell, is supposed to be found only in the knobs or spikes on the surface of the "virus". However, there is NO evidence that the particles observed under the electron microscope (in specimens which are both unpurified and CLAIMED to be "purified") which are called "HIV" contain these knobs!<BR><BR>Despite the fact that NO "HIV particle" has been proven to be infectious, this CCR5 gene deletion (which is supposed to prevent this PHANTOM "infection" process!) is found in *LESS THAN 3%* of those who have been repeatedly exposed to "HIV" but remain resolutely negative (The medical code word for these "slutty" gay men is "EU", for "exposed but uninfected"!). No attempt is made, of course, to survey illicit drug use, if any, among these repeatedly "exposed" but consistently negative cohorts. Those who ARE already positive but do not progress to "AIDS" are said to have this gene deletion as well, and, in these people, this genetic "blessing" is supposed to stave off "progression" to "AIDS". This occurs in no more than about 40% of these positives, despite the fact that, as I have pointed out previously, most, and in some such studies, ALL of these "long-term non-progressors" (LTNP s) have NOT taken the so-called "anti-HIV" meds. See again: <a target=_top href="http://healtoronto.com/survivors.html#wells">THIS ANALYSIS</a> for more on this. Suffice it to say, judging from the data, it sounds like something OTHER THAN the CCR5 gene deletion is responsible for lack of infection in "EU s" and lack of progression in LTNP s.<BR><BR>Because of the reasons I specified above, I would like to suggest that, in the event you cannot find an answer to any subsequent questions you may have on the virusmyth.net or healtoronto.com search engines, you revert to e-mailing me privately with your questions. Please be patient; I am about to get very busy in other areas of my life and may not be able to answer you right away.<BR><BR>As long as there is this monster called "HIV research", doubts will undoubtedly spring up from time to time. That is normal. Just try to keep sight of the big picture, and things should clear up for you pretty quickly.<BR><BR>All the best,<BR>Rod Knoll,<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 22nd, 2002, 09:59 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Sure, what they believe to be HIV, may merely be an endogenous marker, a <br>signalling protein, and not necessarily a virulent agent... Reminds me of <br>the years the medical community treated pellegra and scurvy with lethal <br>drugs until some scientists who were castigated recognized these diseases <br>were merely vitamin deficiencies... medicine has been corrupt - loss of <br>intellectual freedom to pursue truth - as long as the physician/scientist <br>works for the pharma-greed to supply their coffers, the physician is <br>disposable... those who deny this, answer me this; why hasn&#39;t their ever <br>been a double-blind placebo trial for newly diagnosed HIV patients???? <br>Because this placebo trial would likely result in a long-healthy life for <br>the placebo group, and death and morbidity for the medication group and <br>throw asunder the hiv=aids=death myth, once and for all...<br><br><br>&gt;From: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;Reply-To: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;To: &quot;AIDS Myth Exposed&quot; &lt;aidsmythexposed@groups.msn.com&gt;<br>&gt;Subject: Re: OH MY GAWD!<br>&gt;Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 04:17:24 -0800<br>&gt;<br>&gt;We attempted to deliver this message to you with HTML formatting. However, <br>&gt;your e-mail program does not support HTML-enhanced messages. Please go to <br>&gt;your E-mail Settings for this group and change your E-mail Preference to <br>&gt;&quot;Text only&quot;.<br>&gt;http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/_emailsettings.msnw<br>&gt;<br>&gt;MSN Groups<br>&gt;<br><br><br>__________________________________________________ _______________<br>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* <br>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail<br><br></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 25th, 2002, 12:36 AM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>&lt;&lt;<FONT color=#000000 size=3>I am not convinced that going back and forth with your continuous questions here is the best use of this forum.&gt;&gt;</FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>I disagree Rod.&nbsp; We are here to support people who come in, no matter what the question.&nbsp; I for one really like it when we can get to the meat and potatoes of the science of this argument.&nbsp; If Chris brings some information from an actual "expert" ha ha. that we can get some more detailed questions and information from, I want to see it.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>This information is in no way inconvenient for me.&nbsp; I want to see all the information these doctors put forth as "proof of HIV" so that it can be analyzed and debunked.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>That s just me though.&nbsp; If someone wants basic support, we can do that too, but I like the more difficult questions.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>However Chris, these things may freak you out and I understand how you feel.&nbsp; Rod and Kelly and their ilk are old hat at this.&nbsp; They know the talk, they know the issue round and round and are probably tired of reiterating the arguments.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>You have to remember though, that no matter how detailed your experts get with their microscopic talk about receptors and protein walls and crap, the big picture remains.&nbsp; One, they have still never isolated the retrovirus.&nbsp; They say they have.&nbsp; If they have, where is their picture. With all their amazing new breakthroughs they should have made with the billions of dollars we ve given them over the past twenty years, where is one simple picture of isolated retrovirus???&nbsp; There are photographs of other retroviruses?&nbsp; Is HIV shy?&nbsp;Does it run off to style it s devilishly clever receptors when&nbsp;the scientists whip out a camera?&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Two...&nbsp; where are all the dead people?&nbsp; If you go right back to Maggiore s book, if HIV exists, why isn t it killing people the way they say it should???&nbsp; Where s this dreaded pandemic?&nbsp; There s an estimated pandemic, but where s the real one?</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Three...&nbsp; where are all the dead dissidents?&nbsp; Where are the dissidents who have seen the light? &nbsp; I sure as hell would love to know, because I know that if I were a dissident who at year ten suddenly started getting sick, I would come on these boards and tell people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>If I suddenly went through all my data and found that crucial argument and evidence to prove all dissident information wrong, I would come in here and be arguing, peacefully and logically with Rod as to why he is wrong.&nbsp; Because, I would want to save people from the disease.&nbsp; I would want to convince people.&nbsp; I don t think I m the only one.&nbsp; Yet, the only people I have ever seen who argue against the dissidents are agitating, moronic buffoons who have about as much knowledge of what they re talking about as a piece of mouldy cheddar (LMAO)&nbsp; Heh.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Where are all the dead and dying dissidents who have seen the error of their ways?&nbsp; Because after twenty years, there should be some.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Okay, rant end.&nbsp; I have to go prepare for the holidays.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Love you guys.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV><DIV><SPAN><FONT face=Arial>Trist</FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>

November 25th, 2002, 10:29 PM
<TABLE ><TR><TD><FONT size=2>Trist:<BR><BR>Thank you. I really appreciate your insights. I should never assume I know what is or is not inconvenient for the readers of this forum. I m glad to hear you appreciate all of our posts on the forum.<BR><BR>As you are more than painfully aware, Trist, my moods when dealing with this issue tend to flux. I was also really hasty in my previous post, so much so that, in what I m sure you ll agree is a rare moment for me, I forgot to cite my references for the CCR5 gene deletion.<BR><BR>These studies are interesting. One study, co-authored by none other than Fauci (1), looked at only 13 "(HIV)-infected long-term nonprogressors". Only 4 of these were found to have "(t)he well-described 32-bp (base-pair) deletion within the CCR5 coding sequence...". Of course this rather short stretch of genetic material needs to be amplified by the PCR process which, of course, is <a target=_top href="http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chjtests5.htm">PROBLEMATIC</a> in and of itself because of its extremely high sensitivity. I also wonder if the primers used in the PCR process for the detection of the CCR5 gene are SPECIFIC to it and not found elsewhere (sound familiar?).<BR><BR>Another study by none other than David Ho (2) shows that another WHOPPING total of 2 out of 17 "HIV-infected" pediatric "non-rapid progressors" were heterozygous for the CCR5 deletion. However, two children who were negative but "exposed to HIV" because their "mothers were HIV-positive" did not even have heterozygosity for the CCR5 deletion. (And, silly me, I thought that this deletion was not only what prevents progression to disease in most of those who are already so-called "HIV-positive", but also it supposedly prevents most people who have been exposed to "HIV" from getting "infected"?!) You d think at least one of the two "exposed but uninfected" kids would be at least heterozygous if not HOMOzygous for this blessed gene deletion!<BR><BR>Many investigators from the MACS, among others, do something really interesting in a third study (3). They lump together several cohorts of patients from various "risk groups" when compiling their data on the CCR5 deletion comparing "positive" versus "negative" patients but then EXCLUDE a few of these same cohorts of study subjects when the data do NOT support comparisons between "HIV-postive" progressors and nonprogressors.<BR><BR>Of course, we learn as much from what is NOT revealed as we do from what IS. None of these researchers quantifies or attempts in ANY way to determine what, if any illicit drugs are being consumed by the patients (or the MOTHERS of the patients, in the case of the pediatric patients). Nor is there apparently any effort made to distinguish the level of anti-viral use, if any, between the "HIIV-positive" progressors and nonprogressors in these studies. We know, however, from <a target=_top href="http://www.healtoronto.com/survivors.html#wells">OTHER STUDIES OF "LONG-TERM NONPROGRESSORS"</a>, that most such "HIV-positives" have not consumed anti-viral medications. Compare these data with the minority of patients who have the CCR5 gene deletion, and this should be a no-brainer.<BR><BR>Rod Knoll<BR>Founder,<BR><a target=_top href="http://www.aidsrc.org">AIDS REALITY CHECK</a><BR><BR>REFERENCES:<BR><BR>1. J. VIROLOGY, JULY 1998, P. 6215-6217, Vol. 72, No. 7<BR>2. Clin. Diagnost. Lab. Immun., Jan. 1998, p. 38-40, Vol. 5, No.1<BR>3. SCIENCE 1996;273:1856-1862.</FONT></TD></TR></TABLE>