"The published sequences of genes or whole genomes of HIV and other RNA viruses within a particular type or clade represent an "average" or "consensus" of the sequences of all the members of the quasispecies. As the mixed genomes of the quasispecies are sequenced, one particular nucleotide will (usually) predominate in each position and drown out any signal from the other nucleotides that inevitably are present in other members of the quasispecies. This sequence is thus not real in the sense that any appreciable numbers of viruses within the population actually possess it. In fact, at any given time, few if any viruses will have the exact consensus sequence, and even those that do will lose it in subsequent rounds of replication."
Given the above information, given also the "extraordinary variability" of HIV that has been recognised by establishment scientists(See Response to CNOB Part 2) together with the absense of HIV isolation and the lack of complete "genomes" (incomplete or missing LTRs and various insertions and deletions), how much significance can we really attribute to the static genetic sequences in the NIH database purporting to represent complete HIV genomes?