Rhetorical questions 17 December 2003
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Christopher J Noble,
postdoctoral fellow
Bern Switzerland

Send response to journal:
Re: Rhetorical questions

The questions put forward by the Perth Group regarding the evidence for the existence of HIV have been answered numerous times over the years. (1-4)

The fact that the beliefs of the Perth Group have not changed one iota in this time does not indicate that these beliefs have any validity. Rather it indicates that the Perth Group are not presenting themselves as students willing to learn. They have unilaterally set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of what can be accepted as evidence for the existence of retroviruses. They are simply not willing to learn.

The Perth Group know exactly what the evidence for the existence of HIV is. It has been shown to them time and time again.

It is evident that the Perth Group will never accept any evidence as being sufficient to 'prove' the existence of HIV. As the proponents of a competeing theory they are anything but impartial or objective. In the past 20 years they have clung dogmatically to their own theories and have steadfastly refused to see any evidence that contradicts their own beliefs.

This is demonstrated extremely clearly by their misrepresentation of the evidence for the correlation between PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The very paper that they cite in an attempt to support their hypothesis actually contradicts their beliefs. (5) They have been given a chance to amend their views and have responded with outright lies.

(1) http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

(2) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/dtinterviewlm.htm

(3) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/mcinterviewpd.htm

(4) http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vtcorweiss.htm

(5) Owens DK, Holodniy M, Garber AM, Scott J, Sonnad S, Moses L, et al. Polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of HIV infection in adults. A meta-analysis with recommendations for clinical practice and study design. Ann Int Med 1996;124(9):803-15

Competing interests: None declared