Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Noble: Recreational drugs can cause 'HIV' positivity 26 July 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to Noble: Recreational drugs can cause 'HIV' positivity

I wrote to Christopher Noble regarding my hypothesis that recreational drug use can cause 'HIV' positity:

"The Truth is Out There! Look! Look what is happening for yourself and what do you see? Where they claim there are putative 'HIV' epidemics you will find epidemics of recreational drug-use/and or TB, malaria and disease conditions related to poverty/malnutrition. Look at Eastern Europe and the Far East: what they call 'AIDS' epidemics are recreational drug epidemics where people who test 'HIV positive' are really testing for recreational drug use along with disease conditions related to poverty."

Christopher Noble replied: "When I look what I see in common in all of these cases is HIV. I know that you and the Perth Group deny that it exists but simply denying the existence of something does not make it disappear."

Continuing to state that 'HIV' is 'there' does not make it so. Mr. Noble can keep naming and nominating this nebulous material 'HIV' but there is no proof that it is a human immunodeficiency virus'. Naming is not proof of identification.

If Mr. Noble is so convinced that 'HIV' is genuinely in the cultures why can they never be visualised? Why cannot Noble provide visual evidence for the existence of 'HIV'? Anyone can postulate a 'theoretical' virus - now show all of us 'HIV' in practice. To date: know on has ever seen purified/isolated 'HIV'. Why not? If Mr. Noble is right, he will have no fear of electronmicroscopy - EM evidence for the existence of 'HIV'. And it will be a simple matter to recover 'HIV' by the usual methods of pelletting down with centrifugation and slicing through the resulting pellet. To say that this is all a waste of time is ridiculous and an act of obfuscation.

Mr. Noble simply assumes that there is an isolated entity called 'HIV' because he naively believes what he reads in the scientific papers. The taxonomy of 'HIV' was a gross error of misinterpretation in that this unidentified material - to date - has never been proven to be a 'human immunodeficiency virus'; if it were we would have had a white heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West by now. Whatever 'HIV' maybe it is not 'HIV'.

Mr. Noble continues: "I notice that you still haven't produced a reference to back up your claim for your hypothesis that cocaine causes HIV tests to be positive."

My evidence ('reference') is covertly inferred in thousands of scientific papers that make reference to recreational drug-use and 'HIV' positivity. If you deconstruct these texts you will see that 'HIV' positivity is merely a marker for recreational drug-use and/or Malaria,TB, and disease conditions relating to malnutrition and poverty.

Can Noble provide a reference showing recovery of infectious 'HIV' particles from a syringe without resort to culture? Can Mr Noble not provide one reference paper that proves conclusively that 'HIV' (if it exists) causes 'AIDS'? Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner, who invented PCR, asked Luc Montagnier what was the definitive reference paper proving that 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' and Montagnier had no answer and neither has anyone else to this day. Association is not proof of causation.

Finally, in seeking to explain the long periods of time between 'infection' with 'HIV' and the appearance of 'AIDS' symptoms - anything between 8 to 15 to now 30 years - supporters of the 'HIV' hypothesis triedto suggest that this is because 'HIV' is a 'lentivirus'. However, would Noble please explain why 'HIV' behaves like a 'lentivirus' in homosexuals and drug addicts but is presumed to be a more rapid 'virus' in Africa - is it a 'lentivirus' or not? Or is 'HIV' a 'fast-slow' virus? Please consult your colleagues and synchronise fantasies. Why does the 'HIV' incubation period vary so radically from continent to continent?

Competing interests: None declared