Reply to Fenton: The Outlandish Anomalies of the 'HIV' Hypothesis 24 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
Writer/artist/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Fenton: The Outlandish Anomalies of the 'HIV' Hypothesis

Theo HM Fenton stated: "…the views repeated ad nauseam by the HIV- denialists (and the anti-vaccine propagandists) are so outlandish that nobody could possibly take them seriously."

On the contrary: the views expressed by the 'HIV' Monotheists are so outlandish that nobody could possibly take them seriously as you will notice when reading the following questions concerning the anomalies, contradictions and paradoxa regarding the redundant 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis:

a) Why is 'HIV' supposed to spread like wildfire in Africa horizontally (heterosexually) but not this way in the West? Why is 'HIV' prejudiced against 'infecting' white heterosexuals in the West? Why is 'HIV' so racist?

b) Young girls in the UK are practicing 'unsafe' sex yet are hot becoming 'HIV' positive - why not? (Sky News: 24th March. 2005). Teenage STD rates are rising in the UK and USA but there is no endemic 'HIV' epidemic in this group. Why not?

c) Why is 'HIV' alleged to have an elastic incubation period of 10 to 30 years? If 'HIV' is meant to be a 'lenti-virus' why is 'HIV' suddenly supposed to be a 'quick-virus' in Africa? How would a 'lenti-virus' survive in nature? Can they explain the eternally long, and unpredictable, incubation period of 'HIV' between so-called 'infection' and 'disease'?

d) Why does 'HIV', unlike any other pathogenic virus, only causes disease in the presence of neutralizing antibodies?

e) What is their evidence that 'HIV' is destroying t-cells by 'infection'? There is still no empirical evidence or scientific reference paper for this hypothetical assumption - it is no more than pure speculation and wishful (non) thinking.

Supporters of the 'HIV/AIDS' Hypothesis - like Fenton, Bennett, Flegg, Floyd (just like politicians and theologians) - can never directly answer questions put to them by the dissenting 'HIV' critics and:

1. say blatantly untrue things

2. say irrelevant things and make unfounded assertions

3. engage in emotive ad hominem attacks

4. speculate and make assumptions

5. ignore and distort points made by the opposition

6. invent outlandish science fictions

7. shift the goal posts and make up the rules of the game

Fenton unwittingly demonstrates that 'HIV' Momtheism is more about blind faith than hard science. Today the 'HIV' Industry has much more to do with religion and politics than science, as Phillip Johnson stated: "For essentially political reasons, HIV science has been ruled by unexamined assumptions. It is time at long last to have the scientific debate that wasn't allowed to occur ten years ago. Let the politics be put aside, and let the science begin."

I would like to point Fenton to a typical example of what happens when one directly questions the simple-minded 'commonsense' folk-law of 'HIV' Belief as Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, did. Mullis was writing a report on the use of his PCR invention for 'HIV', when he came across the phrase, 'HIV is the probably cause of AIDS'. In his own words:

"I asked the guy sitting beside me, "What is the support for that, what's the reference?" And he said, "You don't need a reference, everybody knows that."

"I assumed there must be such a reference, and that there might be a controversy over who got credit for it, because I was under the impression that Gallo and Montagnier might have been fighting over who had first shown that HIV was the cause of AIDS.... I went back over their early papers, and found that neither of them had shown that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS."

"And then finally, Luc Montagnier came to San Diego, and gave a talk, and I thought, this guy will know. [laughter] After the meeting I asked him, and he first mentioned the CDC report, and I said I had already looked at it, that it wasn't what I was looking for - that I wanted a scientific paper that would support the notion that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, not the consensus of a bunch of people who'd already begun looking at it.

He said, "Well, let's see ..." (and there was a little knot of people around us at that point, thinking, the man must have an answer to that question), and he said, "Why don't you quote the SIV work?" And I said to myself, "Oh my god! There really isn't such a paper, there can't be, or he wouldn't have to refer ... to a virus that might kill a monkey ... to illustrate the probability that HIV is the cause of AIDS!"

(Reference: The Presentations at the HIV Symposium at AAAS Conference; Charles A. Thomas Jr., Kary B. Mullis, and Phillip E. Johnson. "What Causes AIDS: It's an Open Question". Reason, June 1994).

Competing interests: None declared