Answers for Nicholas Bennett 30 September 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Answers for Nicholas Bennett

Nicholas Bennett quotes the following to support his arguments without checking the facts:

"ANTIMALARIAL ANTIBODY DOES NOT INFLUENCE THE SEROLOGICAL POSITIVITY FOR HIV INFECTION" (1. Chattopadhya et al J Commun Dis 1991 Sep;23(3):195 -8 "Antimalarial antibody).

This statement is false and runs contrary to reality and I strongly suggest Bennett reads the work of 'HIV'' expert Myron Essex from Harvard University on this subject for clarification. Essex stated that the sera from patients with disease induced by Mycobacteria cause "significant cross-reactivity with HIV-1 pol and gag proteins".

Regarding the experimental data on 'HIV' antibody testing in Africa, Essex warned that the 'HIV' antibody tests "may not be sufficient for HIV diagnosis in AIDS-endemic areas of Central Africa where the prevalence of mycobacterial diseases [leprosy and tuberculosis and others, whose antibodies cross-react] is quite high". Mr. Bennett may care to look up tuberculosis and leprosy bacellae which also cause an antibody response indistinguishable form 'HIV'.

In a paper published in 1994, Kashala, Essex et al presented evidence that antibodies to carbohydrate containing antigens such as lipoarabinomannan and phenolic glycolipid that constitute the cell wall of Mycobacteria leprae, a bacterium which "shares several antigenic determinants with other mycobacterial species" cause "significant cross- reactivities with HIV-1 pol and gag proteins".

Other well known 'HIV' researchers concede that the specificity of the HIV "antibodies remain imprecise" (Blattner 1989) and "it may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV-1 infection" (Mortimer, 1989).

However Mr. Bennett tries to deny it, the alleged 'HIV' antibodies are non-specific and can be found in up to 70 different conditions all of which are recorded in the medical literature.

Yet Mr. Bennett naively stated: "I have not seen or heard of any studies showing that TB increases the risk of HIV seropositivity either: the 'rediagnosis of old diseases' story is a bit tired after all these years." The truth is never tired.

Mr. Bennett goes on with more misconceptions: "All the disease that make up AIDS are normally rare, or far more serious in AIDS patients than normal (eg oesophageal candidiasis, pulmonary KS."

The 29 diseases/conditions that make up the 'AID' syndrome are not rare and are not new: this is 'common knowledge' in the 'public domain'. Even Kaposi's sarcoma is common amongst homosexual 'AIDS' subjects who use nitrite inhalants. Remember: all the original 'AIDS' cases in the early 1980s in the USA were homosexuals with KS who used poppers. TB and malaria are hardly rare 'AIDS' conditions and constitute largely what we call 'AIDS in Africa'.

In Africa and all Third World countries there are a plethora of intestinal parasites some of which qualify as 'AIDS' conditions: i.e: Shigella, Giardia Lamblia and the parasite that causes amoebic dysentery: all these 'AIDS' diseases are very common. Interestingly, it was observed in the late 1960s and through out the 1970s that homosexuals also suffered from these parasites either singly or in combination and the condition was referred to as 'gay bowel syndrome' - it is now called 'AIDS'. So all these 'AIDS' conditions were around before the invention of 'HIV'. Incidentally, there is no evidence that these intestinal parasites are dependent on immune suppression.

Interestingly, 'AIDS' conditions like dementia, KS, weight loss and various cancers are not dependent upon immune suppression: as Peter Duesberg observed: 38% of 'AIDS' conditions are not dependent on immune- suppression.

I stated: "Historically this is blatantly untrue: all the disparate diseases that make up the 'AID' syndrome were known prior to Howard Temin et al discovering reverse transcription in 1969/70 and the beginning of 'retrovirology' with the subsequent invention of 'HIV' in 1983."

Mr. Bennett replied: "I'm terribly amused that Mr Russell would say that 'historically this is blatantly untrue' as if I would lie about data that can be verified using information in the public domain! I'm sorry to say that it is not I who has been doing the lying, but those who have written what Mr Russell has come to believe. Field's virology lays out the timelines: Volume 2 p 1941-1942 for HTLV-I and p 1971-1972 for HIV-1/HIV- 2."

Mr. Bennett has not been doing the lying here: it is - inadvertently - Field's Virology. As for Mr. Bennett's touching blind faith in Field's Virology: such text books only contain the current received wisdom. No doubt had Mr. Bennett lived in the 16th century he would have rushed around bludgeoning people with his well thumbed copy of his book on The Humors as the only true oracle of medical knowledge. Today doctors blindly quote Field's Virology as the Bible of 'HIV' Fundamentalism: that is - a worthless reference signifying nothing: information given in good faith but based entirely on a misconception is in fact not only worthless - but alos very damaging.

Competing interests: None declared