history of medicine, recent biomed
Why didn’t the Nobel Assembly give the prize to Gallo?
Today’s most interesting medical history news is not that Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier have been awarded half of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for ”their discovery of human immunodeficiency virus”. The interesting news is that Robert Gallo doesn’t share the prize, and that he is not even mentioned in the press release (only in the technical appendix).
In hindsight, both scientists and historians probably agree that the French group made the actual discovery of the virus which was later named HIV. Yet, Gallo and his group at NIH played a significant role both before and after the actual discovery, especially in determing the causative role of HIV for the development of AIDS. Asked about his reaction to the news, Gallo reportedly says it was ”a disappointment” not to be included.
I guess it’s very much a question of what is meant by ‘discovery’ and also which discovery we are talking about. Nobel’s will emphasized ‘discoveries’ (Swedish: ‘upptäckter’), which speaks in favour of awarding Barré-Sinoussi and Montaigner alone. On the other hand, the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet could have chosen to award the establishment of HIV as a causative agent of AIDS rather than the discovery of the virus itself — in that case Gallo would probably not have been excluded (but then again Harald zur Hausen would not have been awarded for “his discovery of human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer”, since only three people can be awarded each year).
06 Oct 2008 Thomas
We have to consider that Gallo’s participation in the identification of HIV is highly controversial, I refer to the samples used by him, which were genetically too similar to the Montaigner’ samples, strongly suggesting a case of biopiracy. There’s no doubt about Gallo’s contributions to the HIV studies in general, but this episode could not be neglected by the Nobel Assembly: award him would be much more polemical rather than excluding him. Kind regards, Luciana.
Well, I agree, but only if you focus on the isolated event of the discovery of the virus itself. Gallo did some very important groundwork for the discovery event, and the Nobel Assembly could therefore have chosen (if they wanted) to put the isolated discovery in a broader discovery context. Compare with the 1984 prize, when Köhler and Milstein were honoured for the hybridoma technology; in this case the Nobel Assembly chose to award Niels Jerne as well, because his theoretical work had laid the ground for Köhler and Milstein’s.
Letter to the Nobel assembly:
To the esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen of the Karolinska Institute, and members of the 2008 Nobel Prize Committee,
I, and many thousands of others worldwide, in the name of Alfred Nobel, humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award in physiology and medicine, revoking these prestigious awards to Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier until purification of a retrovirus that causes AIDS is fully, unquestionably and independently established and verified with a high degree of probability. After 25 years of ever increasing public doubt, Alfred Nobel himself would demand nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
The reasons we find for revocation are many, but to be short and concise, I present to you the following facts:
Professor Bjorn Vennstrom, who was on the Nobel nominating committee, immediately after the award was given to Luc Montagner et al, said in a radio interview that he hoped the award would silence those who claim HIV does not cause AIDS. He said: “We hope this will put an end to conspiracy theories and others who defend ideas that are not founded in research”.
Though we have difficulty understanding why a scientist would wish for anyone not to question any and everything, the only thing that will ever silence those who question HIV is not science by consensus or award, but credible science itself.
Pr. Vennstrom’s words are evidence of his bias and of political and emotional viewpoint on this matter, and are not founded in the presented scientific evidences.
By the way, Vennstrom was also postdocing from 1980-1982 in San Francisco with Bishop and Varmus, who became oncogene Nobelists in 1989. But, there is as yet no evidence that “oncogenes” from human or animal cancers can transform normal cells to cancer cells. Yet, the question “why?” is no longer, “scientifically correct” since the Nobel Prize closed the case. Roma locuta causa finita.
Now the Nobel committee has done just the same with HIV, which Varmus’ committee, including Montagnier but NOT Gallo, named Human Immunodificiency Virus in 1986 without proof that this virus can cause immunodeficiency (Science, 1986).
Another obvious bias on the Nobel committee, is Professor Jan Andersson, who was interviewed as the “spokesperson” for the committee selection of Luc Montagnier, immediately after the award to Montagnier was annouced. Professor Andersson is himself an HIV researcher with his own grants and “science” that is also highly threatened by those worldwide thousands who question HIV.
Quite obviously, these two Nobel committee members were instrumental in urging the 2008 committee to give Luc Montagnier this award. And in so doing, the committee has not demonstrated unbiased or credible science as their measure in awarding the prize.
It is crystal clear to many looking at this situation that bias, politics, and self interests are at stake.
Furthermore, the award to Luc Montagnier for purifying (isolating) HIV is unconscionable, considering that in a 1993 interview, Montagnier himself said about HIV, and I quote: “I repeat, we did NOT purify”. [www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/dtinterviewlm.htm]
And in Montagniers supposed electron microscopic evidence, he identified particles of 3 completely different sizes, from 90 to 130nm as being his isolated retrovirus. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the supposed retrovirus to have varied by such a degree and to have possibly been the same retrovirus!
If perchance anyone ever does succeed in purifying isolated HIV from those said to be infected, it would at a minimum be required to have something more conclusive than Robert Gallo’s presented “evidence” that HIV is the cause of AIDS, which evidence consisted of 36 out of 72 of his “AIDS patients” showing Reverse Transcriptase (RT) activity (Science 1984).
RT activity is NOT restricted, as was believed by former scientists and retrovirologists, to be exclusive to retroviral activity. RT is also known to be caused by yeasts and can also be detected in other occasions as well. RT activity is also not any proof whatsoever of disease causation by any retrovirus. Furthermore, “evidence of RT activity as causation” was only found in a mere 40 percent of his AIDS patients. 40 percent is far removed from any high probability of disease causation.
However, those worldwide thousands who DO question HIV as the cause of AIDS are indeed quite pleased that Gallo has been brushed from Nobel history.
Be assured, that as soon as “we who question HIV” have credible independent science to back Montagnier and Gallo’s claims, such as purified retrovirus taken directly from the blood sera of immunocompromised hiv positives, such as evidence of high probablity of disease causation by such a retrovirus, we will be glad to silence our own questioning selves, and we will be glad to join with the believers of the faith that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
Until then, I, and many thousands of others, in the name of Alfred Nobel, again humbly ask that you reconsider the 2008 Nobel Prize award for physiology and medicine, and revoke this prestigious award until purification and proof of causation of a retrovirus that causes aids is fully and unquestionably independently established and verified. I remind you again that Alfred Nobel himself would demand of you nothing less than the highest due diligence in this matter.
Unless you do so, the award itself becomes dishonored as a meaningless display of this generation’s climate of unsupported scientific claims, based on bias, financial, and political motivations, consensus science, and popular belief instead of proven, verified, scientifically backed evidence.
Both Gallo and Montagnier are frauds.
Gallo is a bona fide fraud, since he stole the purported AIDS virus from Montagnier in hopes of duplicating the glory of vaccine developmen a la Salk and Sabin.
Montagnier is a passive fraud, since he knows the HIV tests are disasterous inaccurate and the drugs used to treat these poor bastards dangerously toxic.
Both of these jokers oughta come clean on their junk science.
Perhaps someone could supply a micrograph of HIV?
A micrograph of HIV seems to be an exceedingly scarce item.
Do those on the Nobel Prize Committee have a micrograph that helped convinced them that Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier actually discovered HIV?
To produce the HIV vaccine one needs a virus. So far development of a HIV vaccine that is safe for adults and small children not been produced. Does HIV really exist?
Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier are no more entitled to share the Nobel Prize than that great artificer Robert Gallo.
There isn’t a vaccine against the common cold, yet is that not caused by Picornaviruses? SO, by your logic Woodruff, what is the common cold is caused by?