Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' is not an STD 17 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' is not an STD

Nicholas Bennett stated: "HIV has behaved much as would be predicted for a sexually transmitted virus first appearing (in the West) among homosexuals. It was largely confined to that risk group and then has subsequently spread to the heterosexuals, IV drug users, and various blood -product recipients. This is entirely consistent. How would Mr Russell propose we confirm sexual transmission: does he think we can isolate and sequence EVERY case that comes to light and compare it to their risk contact."

Yes: until they can do that they have no case. If 'HIV' has never been found in any freshly obtained (culture-free!) bodily fluid, how is it meant to be sexually transmitted? What is the precise mechanism of ‘HIV’ transmission by exchange of bodily fluids if ‘HIV’ has never been found in any bodily fluid? As Prof. Peter Duesberg and Harvey Bialy observed in a grudgingly published letter in Nature: "...infectious units, after all, are the only clinically relevant criteria for a viral pathogen." (Nature, 375, 1995, p. 197).

If 'HIV' has spread into the heterosexual community - as Bennett imagines - where is the ‘HIV/AIDS’ epidemic amongst American, European and Australian heterosexuals? You cannot have a virus that discriminates between gender and racial groups.

Not one 'HIV' particle has ever been recovered from a fresh sample of any bodily fluid taken from a person deemed to be ‘HIV’ positive. So how is the putative ‘HIV’ transmitted – osmosis? Please can Mr. Bennett quote chapter and verse of papers clearly demonstrating the precise mechanism/method of 'HIV' transmission bearing in mind that 'HIV' has never been found as previously stated in any bodily fluid. If no active cell-free viral particles have ever seen, found or recovered, how is the putative 'HIV' transmitted? If Peter Duesberg is correct the explanation for this is simple – the 'HIV' antibodies which betray the exposure to the alleged ‘virus’ are so powerful that they have restricted ‘HIV’ to complete latency. Is Mr. Bennett suggesting that a completely latent 'virus' can cause a disease? Even a virus must obey the basic law of physics – it has to do something to cause something. Moreover, if 'HIV' is completely latent how is it transmitted?

Similarly, can Mr. Bennett quote references proving the sexual transmission of 'HIV' when no 'HIV' has ever been found in a fresh sample of semen; why should 'HIV' be transmitted male to female but not female to male? In which case where do heterosexual males get 'HIV' from? Also: where does the active (insertive) homosexual get 'HIV' from?

'HIV' is generally supposed not to be equally bi-transitive. Please will Mr. Bennett supply references showing the sexual transmission of any other retrovirus or lentivirus? Sexually transmitted pathogens must be equally bi-transitive: even the experts agree this is not the case with 'HIV'. Also: 'HIV' has never been recovered from reconstituted Factor VIII.

Mr. Bennett asks: "Why must we have EM confirmation of virus from semen and blood? Why won't PCR, antigen, or virus culture suffice?" Unless it can be shown that fresh samples of bodily fluids taken deemed to be 'HIV' positive contain pathogenically significant quantities of cell- free, viable infectious viral particles, how do you prove that the ;HIV' is transmissible?

Indirect markers are used by lazy/dishonest virologists who try to pass off virtual virology as the real McCoy. PCR, antigen, or virus culture will not suffice: the culture merely produces a laboratory artefact in the absence of an immune system response. Unless you can have EM confirmation of 'HIV' from semen or blood how do you know it is transmitted in these fluids? If it cannot be found in these fluids it cannot be transmitted or indeed exist. Or are we merely talking about an epiphenomenon found in certain disease conditions. The fact is that all ‘AIDS’ related diseases can occur in people who do not have the hypothetical 'HIV'. So they are not mutually dependent as Peter Duesberg observed (Journal of Cancer Research, March 1st 1987).

At the closing of the 1998 Geneva AIDS Conference press session I asked Dr. Hirschel and Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet: "The current indirect HIV tests and PCR are not sufficient proof that HIV has been isolated. Where is the proof that HIV exists?" The panel appeared nonplussed and were unable to give me an answer.

So-called 'HIV' antibodies maybe be taken as an indicator of risk behaviour. Noble and Bennett are determined to identify an effect as causative. Moreover, they all made the fundamental mistake of assuming association proves causation but it does not.

Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) says it is ridiculous to use it to try to measure 'HIV' – indeed, the fact that you have to use PCR at all merely shows that there cannot be any virus there at all. Yet people still naively believe that the so-called 'viral load' tests actually count whole 'viruses' in the blood but this is not true, and these 'tests' have been denounced by Mullis, who invented the technology on which they are based. And according to Mullis: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron."

When asked what strongly convinced him that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, Mullis replied: "The fact that there's no evidence for it." Mullis asked Luc Montagnier what was the reference which shows how 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' and Montagnier said he could not name a reference.

Yet Bennett seems to imagine he has such a reference: "I can however provide one, single reference to cover all of the above. Fields Virology, 4th Edition. Chapter 60 (volume 2). It has 618 references contained within it: THAT is how we know HIV causes AIDS."

That is not how we know 'HIV' causes 'AIDS'. 618 references notwithstanding, if they are all based on a mistaken premise they are all worthless. Indeed, of the 200,000 plus papers written on 'HIV' are also worthless: 618 pieces of toilet paper. Mettez les au cabinet.

The whole 'HIV' hypothesis hangs on a tissue of scientifically unproven assumptions: 'AIDS research' is little better than folklore peddled as science.

As Niels Bohrobserved: "Science advances - funeral by funeral".

Competing interests: None declared