Page Comparison

...

...

PDF file -

...

Nature's European correspondent wrote a news item in regard to the BMJ Online debate re HIV and AIDS. This is our letter in response which was rejected by Nature with the following noteNature's European correspondent wrote a news item in regard to the BMJ Online debate re HIV and AIDS.

_{================================================================================================}⁼_{December 4, 2003}  

_{Dear Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos}  

_{Thank you for submitting your comment on one of our news articles to Brief Communications. We will publish a correction to the} ^f_{about the micrograph, which was omitted as you have pointed out.}  

_{Regretfully, however, we cannot offer to publish your Communication Arising, because this section is intended for criticisms of o}^u_{Thank you again for writing to us.}  

_{Yours sincerely}  

_{Rosalind Cotte}r 

_{Editor, Brief Communications}  

_{================================================================================================}⁼_{Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F Turner, John Papadimitriou, Barry Page, David Causer, Helman Alfonso}. 

In Declan Butler’s news item (20th November) he has included a scanning electron micrograph which, together with the legend, oarticle and this presumably reflects its importance. However, the source of the electron micrograph (EM) is not given, there are nis not specified. The appearance of the cell in the micrograph is unlike any white blood cell that has ever traversed the vasculardisplayed are indeed HIV they are obviously on the cell and not in the cell as the author claims. Moreover, these surface particlespherical and are several microns in length and such appearances and dimensions would be not only unique to HIV but to any otmicroscopy. It is unlike Nature to feature reports in which the scientific rigor is minimal. 

_{In 1984 one of the researchers predominantly featured in the news item, Wain-Hobson and his colleagues, claimed to have obta}ⁱ_{“purified” virus they found a poly(A)-RNA and claimed that this RNA was the HIV genome.1 However, (i) although poly(A)-RNA} ⁱ_{genomes even Gallo agrees is it is not specific for retroviruses;2,3 (ii) no electron micrograph was published to show that the “p}^u_{impurities containing RNA; (iii) they had no controls; (iv) the only EM of “purified” HIV were published in 1997. These showed t}^h_{predominantly of “budding membrane particles frequently called microvesicles” amongst which there are a small number of parti}c

• Medical journal under attack as dissenters seize AIDS platform - November 20th 2003, Nature

• https://www.nature.com/articles/426215a

...