Alexander H Russell,
Send response to journal:
Nicholas Bennett stated regarding the spurious HHV-8 - KS concoction:
"Regardless of the laboratory findings of popper exposure, it fails to explain why all KS lesions from all four types of KS, including AIDS- KS, contain HHV8."
Then how does Bennett explain that a ubiquitous HHV-8 can be the cause of AIDS-KS exclusively in homosexual men in the West? There is no such thing as a pathogen that can be solely restricted to a single group of people. Has it never occurred to Bennett that evidence of an active virus may be the result of a disease condition rather than a cause of a disease condition? It has long been know that herpes simplex 1 and 2 are persistent infections which most of the time remain dormant. However, once reactivated by other factors they cause cold sores and genital lesions. It has never been shown that either of these common herpes viruses is restricted to or originated in homosexual men. Why therefore does Bennett presume that a further herpes virus, HHV-8, only occurs in homosexual men in the West? Bennett totally fails to see that HHV-8 is a by-product - rather than a causative agent - of KS: you cannot have a pathogen (HHV-8) restricted to homosexual men.
Can Bennett quote a single example of a blood transfusion transmitting HHV8-KS? More importantly, is there a single example of a medical worker contracting KS whilst working with KS patients? Why is AIDS-KS restricted virtually exclusively to homosexual men in the West who use poppers (amyl-nitrites)? Why don't haemophiliacs get KS from Factor VIII? For the same reason that they didn’t get 'HIV' from Factor VIII; it is a physical impossibility due to the manufacture involving cryoprecipitation.
Bennett stated regarding the poppers (amyl nitrite) - KS connection:
"The issue of poppers in KS has been addressed several times. Ascher et al found no correlation between popper use and risk of AIDS, independant of HIV infection. Others have found that they may have an effect IN ADDITION TO HIV infection and of course the use of poppers during a sexual act that could transmit HHV8, found in all forms of KS, is a reasonable hypothesis!"
So why do not heterosexuals get AIDS-KS in the West? You cannot have a pathogen restricted to one group of people: where are the female and male heterosexual cases of Western AIDS-KS?
Is Bennett suggesting that HHV-8 causes 'AIDS' type KS in homosexuals but not in anybody else it infects? I challenge Bennett to find me one single case, anecdotal or otherwise, of a hospital worker infected with 'AIDS' or KS as a result of nursing patients? In the case of truly infectious diseases there are invariably examples where nursing staff have been infected and succumbed to the said disease: where are the examples of this happening with AIDS-KS?
Bennett inadvertently supports my argument that poppers cause KS:
"one study showed a 7-fold higher risk of HHV8 infection in those who used poppers compared to those who didn't."
Exactly: poppers (amyl nirtites) are re-activating a ubiquitous latent herpes virus – HHV-8 – and thus it could be argued that if HHV-8 is the cause KS – and is reactivated by the use of poppers then poppers are the cause of KS in homosexuals.
Yet Bennett makes the unfounded claim that it is: "…the underlying HHV8 infection that is responsible for KS."
Does Bennett suppose that HHV-8 is restricted exclusively to homosexual men in the West? HHV-8 is ubiquitous but usually dormant.
Bennett goes on with more unfounded assertions and assumptions about KS:
"In contrast to Mr Russell's claim that KS has nothing to do with sexual transmission, this data shows just the opposite".
The data show nothing of the kind: KS has never been known or shown to be sexually transmitted: if it were there would be hundreds of thousands of heterosexual AIDS-KS cases in the West by now.
Bennett goes on regarding the myth of 'HIV' transmission via discarded syringes:
"It is true that bisexuals and homosexual IV drug users who shared needles were thought to lead to a heterosexual explosion in HIV infection. This has in fact been shown to happen, but on a much smaller scale than expected."
Precisely: it didn't happen at all. In other words: it just does not happen. Has active, infectious 'HIV' ever been recovered from a discarded syringe? If so, where is this recorded? It is thought to be a possibility that 'HIV' may be transmitted this way but there has never been any scientific evidence to prove it.
No doubt also Bennett will remember in detail the anecdotal case of Dr. Veronica Prego, an Argentine-born physician, who received wide spread publicity during the 1980s after she was alleged to have been 'infected' with 'HIV' as a result of a needle stick injury sustained whilst working in a US hospital. However, Dr. Prego could not be specific of the month or even the year the incident is supposed to have happened (if it happened at all) but she nevertheless sued the hospital for negligence and was awarded some six million dollars; she retired to South America and nothing more has been heard of her. It is a pretty safe bet had she died of 'AIDS' we would have heard it by now as a justification for the needle stick theory of 'HIV' transmission. However, there is no evidence that anyone has ever recovered cell-free infectious 'HIV' from a discarded or even shared syringe: this is pure assumption based on a desire to fit the 'HIV' hypothesis.
No doubt Nicholas Bennett will recall in the early days of AIDS research it was presumed that a transmissible agent, 'HIV', at that time largely restricted to homosexuals would find its way to heterosexual community via a 'bridging group', bi-sexual men. Nobody considered at that time the patent absurdity of this premise: all STDs have their origin in the heterosexual community and find their way into the homosexual community horizontally through sexual transmission by bisexual men. To argue that a disease originates in a minority group and finds its way into the majority is to argue that water flows up hill.
To date: there is not one single recorded example of a health worker nursing 'AIDS' patients contracting either 'AIDS' or 'HIV' or KS despite allegedly being exposed to the infectious agents supposed to cause these conditions.
Bennett makes an unfounded assumption:
*HIV infection is the only independent predictive factor for the classic AIDS-defining conditions."
This is not the case as by 1993 Peter Duesberg cited some 4,600 'HlV' -free AIDS cases (1).
An embarrassed Centers for Disease Control rapidly invented a new name for these 'HIV'-free AIDS cases - ICL - Idiopathic CD-4 Lymphocytopenia. In other words, 'AIDS' without 'HIV'.
(1) By 1993, at least 4621 HIV-free AIDS cases had been documented in the US, Europe, and Africa with the clinical AIDS definition. Even Jaffe, again upon request, reported 89 HIV-free AIDS cases (per. com., 1993). The cases recorded in Table 1 suffered from one or more of the over 25 heterogeneous AIDS-defining diseases and from AIDS-defining immunodeficiencies without diseases. Some of these proved to be HIV-free even by PCR amplification of viral RNA and DNA. (The HIV Gap In National AIDS Statistics, Peter H. Duesberg, Bio/Technology 11 Aug. 1993).
Competing interests: None declared