Aids and the making of the Public Mind 12 October 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Aids and the making of the Public Mind

I would like to bring to the attention of Peter Flegg, Dr. Nicholas Bennett and Christopher Noble a brief extract from a lecture given in 1995 by Michael Tracey which still rings true nearly twenty years later regarding the total failure of the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis.

Mere smoke of opinion: Aids and the making of the Public Mind by Michael Tracey, Colorado University Boulder, Colorado USA

Inaugural lecture of the Chair of International Communication,University of Salford, England UK 1995 (abridged).

"There are three very basic reasons put forward by some scientists for doubting the official theory that HIV causes Aids.

1) After billions of dollars HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system.

2) In the absence of any model of how HIV "causes" Aids, the evidence that is introduced to support the thesis is epidemiological and therefore fundamentally correlational. The epidemiological evidence is both the strength and weakness of the thesis. On the one hand there is a marked presence of HIV in those with the condition, which has been defined as Aids. On the other hand we can map that epidemiology and when we do we discover that it was and remains overwhelmingly within highly specific risk groups. Notwithstanding this the relationship remains correlational and therefore necessarily suggestive of a possible process rather than proof of the existence of a causal mechanism.

3) Predictions made about the likely course of the "epidemic" have failed spectacularly. The media were particularly important in stating the likely extent to which the problem would spread in the general population. In the middle 1980's the talk show host, Oprah Winfrey, told her audience that 20% of all heterosexuals would be "dead of Aids" by 1990. Figures are quoted that in May 1988 there were 1.5 million HIV+ cases in the US, that by 1995 there would be 11,250,000 suffering from "full blown" Aids, and 52,500,000 infected but asymptomatic, and by 2008, 1.8 billion infected. (One scientist giving "evidence" before Congress said that she projected 5 billion infections, but that it could go as high as 10 billion. The fact that this was twice the population of the planet did not seem to phase her). To some observers, such as Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction technique, for detecting DNA, which is used to search for fragments of HIV DNA or RNA in Aids patients, the predictions failed spectacularly, Aids has not exploded into the general heterosexual population and remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, gay men and persistent drug users."

Flegg, Bennett and Noble want to protect and propagate the 'HIV' paradigm at all costs whilst steadfastly refusing to answer any of my questions concerning its anomalies. I challenge them to cite specific scientific papers that unequivocally answer these questions - so far they have refused to supply them:

1) Where is the proof that 'HIV' is actually - rather than supposedly - sexually transmitted? Recent reports from the UK and the USA show huge increases in STD's but show no increases in 'HIV' infections. Where is the evidence that 'HIV'/AIDS is an STD?

2) What is the precise mechanism of the supposed sexual transmission of a virus that has never been recovered from a fresh semen or blood sample.

3) Why does HIV apparently discriminate against Western, non-drug using heterosexuals?

4) What is the specific, definitive scientific paper that clearly demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS?

5) Why is HIV considered to be a lentivirus in the West, but a rapid virus in the Third World? Is it a lentivirus or isn't it?

Competing interests: None declared