Viral Forensics White Paper is Not Worth the Paper it is Printed On: Part II in a Series

In this post I am going to examine and deconstruct the White Paper written by David Rasnick to scam potential clients into using explain to potential clients the Electron Microscopy service offered by Viral Forensics (VF).

A white paper is an authoritative report or guide informing readers in a concise manner about a complex issue and presenting the issuing body’s philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. The initial British term concerning a type of government-issued document has lately proliferated taking a somewhat new meaning in business, which is closer to a form of marketing presentation, a tool for persuading customers and partners and promoting a product or viewpoint. (all bolding mine)

I have never read a white paper before so I am not sure about the proper format. However, I would assume the paper should appear familiar to the audience to which it is geared. In that respect, Rasnick’s strategy to write his white paper in a format similar to a research paper is brilliant. But Rasnick’s audience is not necessarily scientists, doctors and those in the healthcare industry. That is another reason why Rasnick’s strategy to cloak this non-sense in the format of a research paper is so smart; he is hoping to fool normal people into using this “service” by giving the information the appearance of legitimacy. Unfortunately for Rasnick, his paper falls apart under professional scrutiny.

A hallmark of all scientific research papers is the footnote citation which has several important purposes:

“…to uphold intellectual honesty (or avoiding plagiarism), to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author’s argument in the claimed way, and to help the reader gauge the strength and validity of the material the author has used.”

Mr. Rasnick liberally peppers his white paper with footnoted citations. However, upon close inspection, all of his citations are woefully deficient. Their deficiency falls into at least one of the following categories:

  • A They are completely untruthful and/or inaccurate.
  • B They do not support the cited statement.
  • C They refer back to another AIDS Denialist.
  • D They are misleading and disingenuous.

To prove these categories, I will provide the statement, the (supposedly) supporting citation and the truth.

Let’s start with the last citation which is both completely untrue as well as misleading (categories A & D). It is the perfect example to prove that the service marketed by Rasnick is bull-pucky.

I. Statement:

Viral Forensics LLC offers the only forensic examination of blood plasma samples to confirm the absence or presence of viral pathogens. Being 100 times more powerful than a conventional light microscope, TEM can make any viral pathogen visible. TEM can easily confirm the presence of HPV (50–60 nm), Epstein–Barr virus (120–180 nm), HIV (100–120 nm), Ebola (700–1400 nm), etc. In light of the shortcomings, abuse, and unreliability of ELISA, WB, PCR, Flow Cytometry, and phylogenetic technologies, forensic TEM is available to physicians and patients to visually confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens before committing to unnecessary regimens of care and toxic pharmaceutical drugs.12

Citation 12:

Pharmaceutical critics of TEM counter that HIV is not found in blood, which conflicts directly with marketing claims that PCR tests detect viral particles in blood.

Truth:

Nowhere will you find a legitimate critic make the statement “HIV is not found in blood.”  Quite the contrary. What you will find are statements about the required concentration of HIV that must be present in whole blood. Like this one from the Father of Electron Microscopy, Hans Gelderbloom:

Historically, electron microscopy has served as an effective method to identify viral agents of infection. However, the use of electron microscopy as a diagnostic tool is limited by its requirement for a high concentration of particles in the clinical sample. The limit of detection for diagnosis of a virus by electron microscopy is widely accepted as 10^6 -10^8 particles/ml.1 For HIV-1 patients, a “high” viral load may range from 10^4 – 10^6 HIV RNA copies/ml. Because each HIV particle carries 2 copies of the viral genome, 1×10^6 copies/ml would translate to 5×10^5 particles/ml, placing, in many instances, the positive detection of virus outside of the detection limit of electron microscopy. Another consideration is that although HIV can be transmitted through blood and blood products, the viral burden in an infected individual is found primarily in the lymphatic tissue, not in the blood (HIV in the blood may represent just 2% of the total viral burden). Finally, the detection of HIV in blood by electron microscopy may be further complicated by the structural pleomorphism the virus displays.

This is the same response I posted in June 2014 when I deconstructed the abysmal Electron Microscope research paper by AIDS Denialst Andrew Maniotis. And yet the AIDS Deniers are still parroting the same “facts” that have been refuted time and again.

II. Statement: (I broke this paragraph down into two parts to deal with each untruth properly.)

While the development of biological testing has made many advances in the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, FDA package inserts that come with the widely used ELISA, Western Blot (WB), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests clearly describe the unreliability of such testing.1 (bolding mine)

Further, the use of Flow Cytometry (to count CD4 cells) and phylogenetics (to identify the DNA pedigree of the suspected virus) is still too unreliable for FDA approval.2

Citation 1:

Although polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a reliable technology, its application in the detection of so-called “viral load” of alleged pathogens like HIV has more to do with marketing than science. Comments by PCR inventor Kary Mullis PhD explain further at http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html

Citation 2:

See Nancy Banks MD The Use of Flow Cytometry for CD4+ T Cell Counts in HIV Testing, THE OFFICE OF MEDICAL & SCIENTIFIC JUSTICE (OMSJ), Jan 2012.

Truth:

Not only is the statement completely untrue, it is also ridiculous. This link to the FDA website has a list of all the FDA approved HIV test kits. All of them describe the tests as being incredibly reliable for both sensitivity and specificity. I should also note that AIDS Denialists claim that the package inserts state they are not approved for the purpose of diagnosis. This is also untrue and each insert clearly states: For in vitro diagnostic use only. AIDS Denialists do not seem to understand the diagnostic algorithm of ELISA + Western Blot which explains the near-perfect degree of both sensitivity and specificity.

Citation 1 fulfills deficiencies B & D. Not only was the quote about PCR viral load being “more marketing than science” never uttered by Kary Mullis, and therefore does not support the statement (B), it is also misleading (D) because, ironically, the rambling statement by Mullis is about his elusive search for that one, sole, singular “scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: ‘HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.'” This is ironic because my entire post right now is about scientific citations to support important statements.

BTW, there is no disease (or any scientific discovery) that has one, singular, definitive research paper that proves it’s existence. NONE! That is NOT how science works. Anything that is proven in science is done so with the Scientific Method which not only requires, but is dependent upon, the validation by other scientists who duplicate and repeat the exact procedure step, by step, by step and come up with the same, exact results!

Citation 2 fulfills deficiency C in that it refers back to the work of another AIDS Denialist. Which AIDS Denialist authored this particular bit of buffoonery is interesting because it was originally attributed to Clark Baker only. After I wrote two separate posts debunking the science, (Part I here and Part II here) Nancy Banks was added as second author. Now, Nancy Banks is listed as the only author. I have no idea why we should accept Nancy Banks as knowledgeable about Flow Cytometry when her education and experience is that of an OB/GYN doctor. There is no citation to show that Dr. Banks has ever used Flow Cytometry herself nor is there any citation showing Dr. Banks’ education in said technology.

III. Statement:

In contrast to these tests, Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has been the “gold standard” for viral detection and characterization since the 1930s. Unlike the ELISA, WB, and PCR tests, the undirected “open view” of TEM provides the rapid, and objective detection, identification, and quantification of any virus present in a person’s plasma, pustules, sputum, urine, feces, and tissues.

Citation:

Surprisingly there is NO citation for the above statement which DEMANDS proper citation. Dr. Rasnick can not make such a bold statement about TEM being“the ‘gold standard’ for viral detection and characterization since the 1930s” and expect people to take him at his word.

Truth:

Actually, EM is quite limited in the identification of virus. It can not identify a virus past the Family level:

“EM, though it may not be able to identify a virus beyond the family level, at least points the way for more specific identification by other methods such as biochemical assays for specific pathogens.”

“Family” is one of the seven designations within the Taxonomy naming system in the Biological Sciences. Here are the designations from broadest to most narrow:

  1. Kingdom
  2. Phylum
  3. Class
  4. Order
  5. Family
  6. Genus
  7. Species

HIV is Classified thusly:

  • Family: Retroviridae
  • Genus: Lentivirus
  • Species: Human Immunodeficiency Virus

So if TEM can only identify down to the Family level and HIV is two levels LOWER, then how can TEM be the “gold standard” of detection?

IV. Statement:

This white paper presents a concise explanation of TEM and its usefulness in verifying the presence of suspected pathogens reported by less accurate technologies. More importantly, we propose the scientifically indisputable and cost-effective solution of employing TEM to confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens.3

Citation 3:

While this White Paper often uses HIV tests as an example, the same technology and limitations applies in the testing of HPV, HCV, Ebola, and other pathogens.

Truth:

First of all, Citation 3 is not a citation at all, but a wide-ranging, blanket-definition that shows just how lazy and pathetic the Viral Forensics service is in challenging tried and true diagnostic testing modalities. Also, and this can not be over-stated: Dr. Rasnick never cites nor proves that other “technologies” are “less accurate”.

Secondly, I have already shown the extreme limitations “…of TEM and its usefulness in verifying the presence of suspected pathogens…” by proving that EM is limited to the “Family” level of taxonomy, the Biological Naming System.

Lastly, I have proven that this Viral Forensics White Paper is NOT “the scientifically indisputable and cost-effective solution of employing TEM to confirm the presence or absence of viral pathogens.”

The White Paper of Viral Forensics is so lugubrious and loaded with so much misinformation that this post is already bordering on 2,000 words. I will have to stop for now and finish this post at a later date as Part III.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: