Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' Dogmatists negate 'conventional thought' 17 April 2005
Previous Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' Dogmatists negate 'conventional thought'

Nicholas Bennett stated regarding critical 'AIDS' Analysts:

"There is no consistent view or aim, reflected in the regular confused posts from newcomers to the dissident discussion boards. Practically the only thing uniting them is a refusal to accept the conventional thought."

On the contrary, critical 'AIDS' Analysts absolutely accept the 'conventional thought' (rules of virus isolation, etc), which is precisely why we are questioning the proponents of the ‘HIV’ Hypothesis who constantly ignore conventional thought about the practice of isolation, etc.

It is precisely the total lack of "conventional thought" (and conventional scientific practice) that mars the thinking of the proponents of the 'HIV/AIDS' Hypothesis. For instance: when Koch’s Postulates, the tried, trusted and ‘conventional’ method of proving the existence of a pathogen were completely unfulfilled by 'HIV', the supporters of the 'HIV' Hypothesis declared the Postulates to be rubbish.

Moreover, the 'conventional' rules for retrovirus isolation laid down at a conference at the Pasteur Institute in 1974 were flagrantly ignored by the scientific team working at the very same institute in 1983, who claimed to have found a retrovirus in the tissues a homosexual man suffering from lymphadonopathy merely by finding what they claimed to be reversetranscriptase activity and other dubious surrogate markers. However, when subsequently challenged, Luc Montagnier, the leader of the team, admitted that they did not find or isolate any viral particles, and despite heroic laboratory efforts - described by Montagnier, as "Roman efforts" – no 'HIV' was found. If 'HIV' does not fit the conventional rules, they rubbish those rules, move the goal posts and rewrite the rules of the game – then shoehorn 'HIV' in as a 'killer pathogen' when in fact it is nothing of the kind.

From the outset it was claimed, in order to explain the embarrassingly elastic incubation period of 'HIV/AIDS' – said to be anything from 10 to 30 years between putative 'infection' and onset of disease - that 'HIV' was a lentivirus, a slow acting retrovirus. Yet now we are told that 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' in a matter of months in Africa and the Third World. Is 'HIV' a 'lentivirus' or not? As Peter Duesberg stated: "There are no slow viruses – only slow virologists." Why is it that there is still no heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West whilst there is allegedly a heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in South Africa?

We are not 'dissidents' or 'denialists' but deconstructionists – critical and autonomous 'AIDS' Analysts teasing out the absurdities, anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions of the redundant 'HIV' Hypothesis.

It is the propagators of 'HIV' dogma who persistently refuse to accept 'conventional thought' (and practice) and merely make up the rules as they go along – changing the rules of 'virtual virology' virtually daily – to patch up the tottering 'HIV' Hypothesis.

Competing interests: None declared