Nobel Prize Medicine: Robert Gallo who claimed to have discovered HIV causes AIDS snubbed by the Nobel Prize committee

The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine announced today gave the American fraudster Dr. Robert Gallo the snub that was long overdue.  By making only a passing mention of his work in the discovery of the HIV (virus) that causes AIDS, while awarding the Prize to Prof. Francoise Barre Sinoussi and Prof. Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize committee has shamed Dr. Gallo.

The Prize has kindled the memories of the controversies as to who really discovered the virus.  That the aggressive American had brains but no wisdom became soon apparent when the world got to know that he published his results after Prof. Luc published his and yet tried in vain to claim credit for the discovery.

A Congress investigation determined in 1992 that Dr. Gallo had not discovered HIV. The virus that he claimed to have found had actually been taken from a sample sent to him by Prof. Luc.

The Prize now is the last way of confirming who actually discovered the virus.

And it took the Presidents of France and America to intervene and end the controversy. And despite the US Federal Office of Research Integrity accusing him of committing a scientific misconduct, he stands to earn nearly $1 lakh every year as royalties on blood tests.

What a shame.

But it should be mentioned that he made some seminal contributions.  So why did the committee not including him?  Was it because he was involved in scientific misconduct that turned out to be one of the biggest scientific controveries or was it simply because only three scientists can be ever awarded the prize under one category.  So by including him, the committee would have to overlook the German Harald zur Hausen’s discovery that HPV virus causes cervical cancer.  If not this year the German would have won it next year or so. So that cannot be the reason.  One can one guess that the committee did it intentionally.  And Gallo had told the Associated Press reporter that he was disapponinted.

Awarding the Nobel Prize has always been seen as one of the ways of shaming a country or its policies.  Remember Dali Lama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? That was to shame China. But it was almost always the Peace prize that was used for this purpose. But this is the first time that America has been on the receiving end, and that too in the Medicine category.

One thought

  1. One of the main reasons they are now finally giving a Nobel for HIV, is that they want to quiet the ever increasing number of HIV dissidents. Some of the Nobel committee members have even publicly said so themselves.

    I want to inform you of the following letter of protest that has been sent to each of the 2008 Nobel Prize committee members. It is quite devastating.

    To the esteemed Ladies and Gentleman of the Karolinska Institue, 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 medicine, and revoke the prestigious awards to Barre-Sinoussi and Montagnier until purification of a retrovirus that causes aids is fully and unquestionably independently established and verified to have a high degree of probability. After 25 years of ever increasing public doubt, Alfred Nobel himself would demand of you 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, right after the award was given to Luc Montagnier, said in a radio interview that he hoped the award would silence those who claim that 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 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 questions- “why?” are no longer, “scientifically correct” since the Nobel Prize closed the case. Roma locuta causa finita. Rome has spoken, case closed.

    Now the Nobel committee has done just the same with HIV, which Varmus’ committee, including Montagnier but NOT Gallo, named Human Immunodeficiency 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 announced. 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 his award. And in quite obviously the committee has not demonstrated non-biased nor 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 unconscienable, considering that in a 1993 interview, Montagnier himself said about HIV, and I quote: “I repeat, we did NOT purify”.

    If perchance anyone ever does succeed in purifying isolated hiv from those said to be “infected”, it would at 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 is not restricted, as was formerly believed by earlier scientists, to be exclusive to retroviral activity. RT is known to also be caused by yeasts and can also be detected in other occasions as well. RT activity is also not any proof whatsoever of any retrovirus causing any disease. Furthermore, Gallo’s “evidence of RT as causation” showed a mere 40 percent of his “aids patients” showed RT activity! 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 Robert Gallo has been brushed from Nobel history. For this, we do sincerely thank you.

    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 probability 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, conscensus science, and popular belief instead of proven, verified, scientifically backed evidence.



Comments are closed.