Re: Re: Analysis: the properness of the HIV hypothesis is a media hype 21 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Torsten Engelbrecht,
20359 Hamburg

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Analysis: the properness of the HIV hypothesis is a media hype

"when an experiment is challenged no matter who it is challenged by, it's your responsiblity to check. that is an ironclad rule of science, that when you publish something you are responsible for it." howard temin, nobel laureate

"these guys [from aids orthodoxy] just don't have it [the experimental proof that hiv causes aids]" kary mullis, nobel laureate

dear mr. bennett,

many thanks for your answer. please allow me to explain why you are mistaken in every single point of your rapid response message:

1. there much more than 60 (there are hundreds) of reputable experts that state that the hiv hypothesis has not been proven yet - and my survey confirms again that nobody can deliver any proof (study) for the hiv hypothesis.

2. even if there was only one expert or person who says that the hiv hypothesis is unproven, that's enough (keeping also in mind that nobody is able to deliver any clear-cut proof!). we should never forget: it's not the majority that counts in order to establish scientific facts, it's "experimental proof", as nobel laureate kary mullis commemorates. and isn't it said that this has to be commemorated? nobel laureate howard temin: "when an experiment is challenged NO MATTER WHO IT IS CHALLENGED BY, it's your responsiblity to check. THAT IS AN IRONCLAD RULE OF SCIENCE, THAT WHEN YOU PUBLISH SOMETHING [e.g., an article based on the assumption that the hiv hypothesis is true] YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT."

3. so you are responsible for delivering the clear-cut proofs for the hiv- hypothesis: so where is the clear-cut proof (in form of a single study) that (1) hiv exists, that (2) hiv causes aids, that (3) hiv/aids is sexually transmitted, or that (4) anti-retroviral drugs prolong life? do you mind send me these kind of studies? again, it's you (saying that the hiv hypothesis explains aids) who has the burden of proof!

4. you write that other scientists (than the ones who follow duesberg and the perth group) like mullis, de harven or giraldo "just chipped in with one or two specific points". this is definitely also not true. kary mullis, for example, has not only chipped in with something, he confronted the aids establishment with the most fundamental criticism: that there's no proof that hiv causes aids. also, he said (e.g., in an interview in the year 2000 with the german newspaper "sueddeutsche zeitung") that aids must be a lifestyle-disease (so he agrees witht duesberg and many others that the drug hypothesis explains aids). also etienne de harven: he has not only chipped in with something, either, because he confronted the aids establishment with the other most fundamental criticism: that there's no proof that hiv exists - which, by the way, caves in the whole hiy=aids- bulding. and he also said: (1) stop all use of antiretroviral drugs until the isolation of hiv and its pathogenicity are scientifically established; (2) stop using highly crossreacting serological tests, the hiv specificity of which is far from demonstrated; (3) provide african people with means do combat malnutrition, clean drinking water, proper housing and sanitation, and efficient health-care infrastructures (see his speech at a 2003 eu-conference "problems with isolating hiv: and also robert giraldo is not just chipping in "with one or two specific points", either! please just have a look on his paper "IS IT RATIONAL TO TREAT OR PREVENT AIDS WITH TOXIC ANTIRETROVIRAL DRUGS IN PREGNANT WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND ANYBODY ELSE?" (see then you will see that giraldo shows up the absurdity of every single thesis of the hiv hypothesis!

5. you quote studies that you think are proving the usefulness of pcr-tests. but first, if hiv has not been proven (which is obviously the case because nobody is able to deliver a clear-cut proof) all these studies are just useless because they don't have a proven base. moreover, there are several studies showing that pcr-tests are useless (even if you assume that the hiv-hypothesis is correct); for example: Josiah D. Rich et al., "Misdiagnosis of HIV infection by HIV-1 plasma viral load testing: a case series" (1999) Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 37-39. and last but not least kary mullis himself - the inventor of the pcr - says that pcr-tests are useless for aids-diagnosis. they are much too sensivite. so no one, not even montagnier or gallo, could plausibly explain why so few of the helper cells so important for the immune defence are infected even in terminal aids-patients. hence, they couldn’t explain the breakdown of the immune system with just the hiv-theory. "proceedings of the national academy of sciences" already called attention to this paradox in 1985 (Pahwa et al., 1985, p. 8198-8202). that same year, montagnier admitted in "annals of internal medicine" that the virus alone could not be responsible for aids but that co-factors were necessary. this is the standpoint still taken today. however, orthodox science as well as the media aren't interested in this point of view. they have already committed themselves to the hiv/aids-hypothesis without having any proof for it...

6. you say you are silenced by dissidents. i don't know if this is true, but i am sure that you won't be silenced if you deliver what everybody is asking for since many, many years: the clear-cut proofs for the hiv hypothesis. why don't you just write them down here in this forum, and all the "dissident-spook" that obviously gets on your nerves is over?

7. again, you are wrong in saying that "hiv causes a single disease, aids". i mean, how can you claim that? the opposite is true! the cdc- definition of aids says that you are an aids-patient if you have been tested positively and (1) has one of dozens(!) well-known(!!!) diseases (many of them actually not being an infectious disease!!!) like kaposi's sarcoma, herpes zoster, etc. and/or (2) less than a specific amount of cd4 cells. and the bangui-deifintion of aids applied in third world countries says that you are an aids-patient just if you have a specific (again well- known) diseases (plural!!!) like tuberculosis, cough, weight-loss, etc. whatever aids is caused by, aids is not a single disease, that's for sure!

8. malnutrition, drugs like poppers or crystal meth, and anti-retroviral drugs are immune suppressive. practically all aids-patients in rich countries are heavy drug users - so what makes you so sure that drugs don't play an important role in the development of aids syndroms? even gallo admitted that hiv cannot be the primary cause of aids-kaposi's- sarcome, but poppers is probably the primary cause." and what makes you so sure that in poor countries (in africa, for example one third of the population is affected by malnutrition) malnutrition does not contribute to the people's illnesses called aids? and what makes you so sure that all theses illnesses called aids are not just a re-definition of well-known diseases like tuberculosis?

you write: "dissidents prefer to keep their readers uneducated, because that's the only way the anti-hiv-pseudoscience can persist." but actually it's exactly the other way around: as long as you are not able to deliver clear-cut proofs for the assumptions of the hiv-hypothesis - especially for the claims that (1) hiv exists, that (2) hiv causes aids, that (3) hiv/aids is sexually transmitted, or that (4) anti-retroviral drugs prolong life - hiv-science is pseudoscince in pure culture because you do science that is based on pure believes, and not on experimental proof.

thanks for your attention and best wishes

torsten engelbrecht

Competing interests: None declared