Questions for Peter Flegg 27 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Questions for Peter Flegg

Peter Flegg stated: "I agree with Mark Bartlett that more should be done to try and reverse immune deficiency in cases of HIV infection." And in a recent Rapid Response Flegg wrote that "HIV can lead to structural/architectural changes within reticulo- endothelial organs or nodes if the infection has persisted for long enough." If 'HIV' has never been isolated or visualised from semen, where is this imaginary 'HIV' coming from?

Peter Flegg must know that in the UK we have a huge increase of STDs amongst the teenage heterosexual population, yet there is no commensurate increase in 'HIV' spread amongst this group; and, indeed, any indegenous heterosexuals in the UK.

As I have already explained, the supposition that 'HIV' is transmitted via bodily fluids has never been proven for the simple reason no one has ever found direct evidence (as supposed to surrogate markers) of a single cell-free, viable, infectious particle of 'HIV' in any bodily fluid examined freshly taken from a supposed 'HIV' infectee. The suppositions of the transmission of 'HIV' are no more than that unproven suppositions. I ask Peter Flegg: where is the 'HIV/AIDS' epidemic amongst American, Canadian, European and Australian heterosexuals? Why does 'HIV' discriminate against Western heterosexuals?

Retroviruses are always genetically transmitted from female to offspring. Why should 'HIV' be the exception? Don't you think it just a trifle suspicious that neither of the two diseases alleged to be caused by human retroviruses were known to medicine prior to the discovery by Howard Temin of the phenomenon of reverse transcription and the birth of 'retroviral' studies? Are you suggesting that these human retroviruses, supposed by Robert Gallo, to have been in the human blood stream for hundreds of years, were considerate enough to wait to cause disease until we started to study them. No one had heard of 'adult T-cell leukaemia' until it was discovered in Japan in 1976 by retrovirologists studying HTLV -1.

Similarly, the 'AIDS' syndrome was hand knitted to fit the study of a second human retrovirus, subsequently called 'HIV', which some 'experts' alleged to have been present in the human blood stream for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And was then identified as the causative agent of a syndrome no one had seen prior to 1980.

It is more usual when we are unaware of the cause of a disease to look for a causative agent: in the case of 'HTLV-1' and 'HIV' we found the 'viruses' and had to match them up for a disease. It is not uncommon to find what is called an orphan pathogen and subsequently match it up with a known disease - (it is quite another matter to prove it is causative - hence the value Koch's postulates) - but to find two new diseases virtually simultaneously whilst studying the novel phenomenon of 'retroviruses' is just a little bit too suspicious. They found the result they wanted to find.

Competing interests: None declared