Reverse Transcription in Uninoculated Cultures
An indirect marker which is inferred to establish the existence of HIV.
A reverse transcriptase is said to be an enzyme used to convert RNA to DNA, a process termed reverse transcription. Enzymes are proteins.
This in vitro phenomenon, amongst others, was claimed to prove the isolation and existence of HIV (a retrovirus) by Luc Montagnier [1] and Robert Gallo [1, 2, 3, 4] in the 1980s.
The experiments of Montagnier and Gallo were essentially the same.
The detection of reverse transcriptase activity in presumable infected tissue stimulated with a lectin called PHA was used as evidence for the existence of a virus (HIV).
However, in 1973, Gallo himself demonstrated that reverse transcriptase can be found in “PHA stimulated (but not in unstimulated) normal human blood lymphocytes.”
Reverse transcriptase was discovered in the early 1970s associated with alleged retroviruses.
But subsequent research discovered that this phenomenon was widespread, as described by virologist Harold Varmus in 1988.
“Although reverse transcription was first encountered in the retrovirus life cycle, it is hardly unique to retroviruses; it is now recognized as a widespread phenomenon in eukaryotic cells and viruses. Indeed, as much as 10% of the eukaryotic genome may be composed of products of reverse transcription.”
As early as 1971, Howard Temin, the discoverer of reverse transcriptase, reported the detection of a reverse transcriptase from uninfected rat cells and concluded that reverse transcriptase activity does not “necessarily represent oncogenic [retro] viruses.”
A year later, Temin detected a reverse transcriptase from “uninfected chicken embryos and cells in culture” and concluded; “it is tempting to assume that this activity is related to normal cell function.”
The non-specific nature of reverse trancription was plainly described by Harold Varmus in 1987, who stated that it occurs “even in the uninfected cells of yeast, insects and mammals.”
In the documentary The Emperor’s New Virus? - An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV, Nobel laureate David Baltimore states that “reverse transcription is very widespread.”
In light of the non-specifity of reverse transcriptase, how can this phenomenon be evidence of a virus?
The genre of ViroLIEgy has inspired numerous works of fiction for the silver screen, including some major blockbusters, such as, the Spanish flu, HIV House of Horror, and, more recently, CONVID 19. Along the way, we‘ve been treated to some entertaining B movies like Silly Sars 1, Mythical Measles, and Monkeypox for Monkey Business. With such a ‘diverse‘ array of narratives available, there's truly something for everyone, as long as you remember that the genre of viroLIEgy is purely fictional.
Great work gain, Aldhissla!!
Most people, if they deal with the topic at all, probably do not realise the explosive nature of the facts. If reverse transcriptase RT is not the sole characteristic of retro viral existence (assuming that viruses actually exist), then the answer can always be: there is a virus. Or not. Then virology can no longer go beyond the coin toss.
As a compelling consequence, the alleged recognition feature of RT must inevitably be abandoned. Then, instead of constantly looking at secondary phenomena, all that remains is to examine the object itself and not the "traces" it supposedly leaves behind.
Example: Footprints and blurred images FPBI are the only "proof of Bigfoot's existence". However, FPBI also exist from other species with feet, for example humans and apes. In this case, a footprint cannot be sufficient evidence. A bigfoot must be caught and examined. And until then, its existence is a legend, and trackers can only flip a coin to decide what they have found.
RT is only one criterion in which the discriminatory power within virology has been lost.
All the properties assigned to "viruses" are as blurred as the worst Bigfoot photos. Same with the alleged antibodies.
If you expect selectivity, clear rules and stable theories from a science, you are in the wrong place in virology.