Alexander H Russell,
Send response to journal:
I recently wrote to Mr. Noble regarding my hypothesis that recreational drug-use can make the non-specific ‘HIV’ test run ‘positive’ with the following:
“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. “
Mr. Noble responded with his usual sarcasm and obfuscation:
“Unfortunately my Magic Denialist Decoder Ring seems to have been lost in the mail along with the pair of Magic Denialist Spectacles (these instantly become opaque whenever an EM of HIV is in the vicinity).”
There has never been an EM of ‘HIV’ in the vicinity or anywhere else. Mr. Noble goes on off the tracks again:
“What Alexander Russell really means is that the association of HIV with AIDS is not proof of causation but that the association of drug use with HIV infection and AIDS is proof..”
I do not mean that because there is no such thing as ‘HIV’ infection. Mr. Noble rants on:
“Deconstruction of the literature then can be seen to mean: I will ignore all evidence that conflicts with my hypothesis and will jump on all evidence no matter how tenuous that can be made to support it.”
No, wrong: deconstruction works without the 'I' of the 'subject'. Deconstruction works within the texts themselves 'autonomously' taking them apart. Deconstruction operates from within the original source material - which Mr. Noble naively calls 'all evidence’. Deconstruction shows us simply and purely - in the original papers by Gallo and Montagnier - that there is no evidence that ‘HIV’ exists as an isolated/purified retrovirus; that there is no evidence that ‘HIV’ is a sexually transmitted retrovirus or that ‘HIV’ causes ‘AIDS’. There simply is no visual EM 'evidence' out there that proves that 'HIV' exists.
Below is deconstructive ‘evidence’ for the hypothesis that ‘HIV’ is not a sexually transmitted retrovirus. I challenge Mr. Noble, after reading the following, to prove that ‘HIV’ is a sexually transmitted retrovirus.
Recent news reports from the UK and the USA show huge increases in STD infections but no increases in hypothetical 'HIV' infections. Where is the empirical evidence that 'HIV' really is an STD, Mr. Noble?
The following figures below seem to back my argument that'HIV' is not a sexually transmitted retrovirus.
BBC News (Tuesday, 27 July, 2004, 15:12 GMT 16:12 UK): reported:
'Sex infections continue to rise' "The number of sexually transmitted infections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland rose by 4% last year, figures show. The Health Protection Agency said cases of chlamydia - the most common sexually transmitted infection - jumped by 9%. Overall, 708,083 people were diagnosed with an STI in 2003."
Sexually Transmitted Infections New cases reported in England, Wales and Northern Ireland:
Disease Cases 2002 Cases 2003 Change Chlamydia 82,558 89,818 9% Genital herpes 18,432 17,990 -2% Genital warts 69,569 70,883 2% Gonorrhoea 25,065 24,309 -3% Syphilis 1,232 1,575 28% (Source: Health Protection Agency).
Why have they omitted figures for new 'HIV' infections? Where is the heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the UK? Why is 'HIV' so prejudiced against heterosexuals in the West?
We were all told by John Hurt on that alarmist TV advert in the 1980s(with a tombstone slamming down with lilies) that 'HIV' was an 'equal opportunities killer' and that 'we were all at risk'. Obviously we are not all at risk.
This current trend is echoed in the United States:
The Weekly Health News: (Weekly Health News: July 5th - to July 11th, 2004) reported: 'Syphilis Outbreak Hasn't Led To HIV':
"Health officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles braced themselves for the worst when they saw an explosion of syphilis cases in gay men, but the rise they expected to see in subsequent HIV infections hasn't materialized.
A new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that, between 1999 and 2002, the increase in syphilis has "not had a substantial impact on rates of new HIV infection" among men who have sex with men.
In fact, researchers said, the number of new HIV cases declined slightly in both cities. According to the article in the CDC publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, experts worried about a rise in HIV in this population because syphilis makes the acquisition and transmission of the AIDS virus easier."
If syphilis is alleged to aid the spread of 'HIV' and there has been alarming increases in the numbers of syphilis cases, why is this not reflected in an equivalent rise of 'HIV' infection?
Can Mr. Noble prove that ‘HIV’ exists and that ‘HIV’ is a sexually transmitted retrovirus? So where is this promised heterosexual ‘HIV’ epidemic in the UK?
Competing interests: None declared