Alexander H Russell,
Send response to journal:
Mr. Nicholas Bennett stated regarding my on-going questions concerning the supposed transmission of 'HIV':
"Upon re-reading Mr Russell's latest contribution it seems that he is fixated upon getting the virus into the blood stream: 'Why should 'HIV' be more readily 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? How does a passive (receptive) homosexual transmit 'HIV' to an active (insertive) homosexual? I want the precise mechanism please.' …"
Mr. Bennett replied: "For starters 'more readily' implies that it is not 'exclusively', and female to male transmission clearly occurs. One does not need an explanation when the observation is staring you in the face (when someone comes up with an explanation for gravity, then let me know)."
What 'observation is staring you in the face'? Clearly, "female to male transmission" is only assumed to occur, I just want to know the precise mechanism of infection. Mr. Bennett has not provided proof, merely epidemiological suppositions based on fictional figures. How does 'HIV' get out of one person into the other bearing in mind that viable, cell- free, infectious 'HIV' particles have never been recovered from any bodily fluid in vivo?
Mr. Bennett goes on: "I suggest that if Mr Russell has time…to seriously devote to disentangling the language (as intended, not as understood by him currently), he'd get a proper grasp for why HIV infection via sexual intercourse is not just true by observational epidemiology, but also has sound biological reasons behind it."
This so-called 'observational epidemiology' is the arbitrary counting game of 'virtual virology', where bogus figures are cynically manipulated and inflated merely to conflate salaries and keep the 'HIV' industry gravy train rolling.
Mr. Bennett continues: "As I noted previously, there is little I can do to convince Mr Russell of the basic tenets of molecular biology. If he refuses to accept solid, standardised, tried and tested methods such as virus culture, antigen and nucleic acid testing over 'visual confirmation by electronmicroscopy' then there is little I can offer him."
Why does Mr. Bennett reject the standard procedures for recovering viral particles using centrifugation and pelletting down? If Mr. Bennett maintains 'HIV' is there it should be possible to find it and visualise it using EM. If no significant titre of 'virus' is there, it cannot be causing any disease or damage.
However, none of these 'tested methods' (culture, antigen and nucleic acid testing) that Mr. Bennett depends upon can show actual, real 'virus'. Mr. Bennett misses the point: these indirect methods of viral detection were introduced when Robert Gallo failed to see any 'HTLV1' particles in the diseased tissues of leukaemia patients. These methods merely infer a viral presence, but do not prove it. Why is Mr. Bennett so nervous and dismissive about visual evidence? For the same reason Robert Gallo is – it's the Emperor's New Virus, no-one can see it, but we all know it's there, just like the Holy Ghost, because Robert Gallo says so.
Mr. Bennett makes the following correct observation:
"Any reference I supply will not match Mr Russell's criteria: it is clear that he will only accept something akin to a hour-by-hour timecourse study of EM visualisation of seminal or vaginal secretions prior to, during and after intercourse backed up by EM visualisation of blood borne infection."
Right on, Mr. Bennett, that's exactly what I require - if you claim 'HIV' is alive and doing something then show it to me.
Mr. Bennett makes the following error regarding so-called in vivo images of 'HIV': "Hans Gelderblom answered the point about in vivo HIV images some time ago, as I passed on. There are many images of HIV in lymph nodes of HIV infected (but not HIV-seronegative) people, as detected by immunofluoresence, EM (with or without immunogold labelling) or RNA/DNA hybridisation. This evidence is more than enough to convince most scientists of the presence of an agent: why not Mr Russell? What do his qualifications as a writer, artist and philosopher grant him that are lacking in an honours degree, PhD and medical degree as regards being able to critque scientific findings? I would have to acknowledge his views on literature and the existence of God..."
To be slightly more accurate, morphologically identical particles to 'HIV' can be seen in swollen lymph gland tissue taken from 'HIV' negative individuals, and in almost all placentas. They are just not referred to as 'HIV'.
Mr. Bennett would do well to remember that 'experts' are only experts until they are debunked and only when they are can science grow. One does not need a 'medical degree' or 'qualifications' to be critical and think autonomously. Mr. Bennett should be far more critical when reading scientific papers and electronmicrographs and not take at face value what authors or titles of images say. Deconstruction means teasing out the internal flaws and contradictions in a text. Gelderblom et al provide a good case for necessary scepticism.
Has Mr. Bennett actually seen the Gelderblom images? They are not what he claims they are? Hans Gelderblom of Berlin's Robert Koch Institute co-authored the first paper in Virology, March 1997, showing 'purified HIV' to be 'purified microvesicles'. What was assumed to be 'purified HIV' was in fact "an excess of vesicles".
The hypothetical 'HIV' is in fact a collection of endogenous microvesicles and cellular proteins (which also never seem to form particles - so how can they be infectious)? The very title of their paper gives the game away:Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations; Gluschankof P, Mondor I, Gelderblom HR, Sattentau QJ. (Virology, 230:125- 133, 1997).
Hence Gelderblom's images are mistakenly labelled as 'purified HIV' but are in fact a compost heap of microvesicles and cellular debris. Three arrows point to barely discernible dots alleged to be 'HIV'. Gelderblom’s image shows three raisins in a bowl of muesli – hardly isolated 'virus'! So how do you explain all the other gunge? Isolation means – need I remind Mr. Bennett – separation from everything else.
In another paper in the same issue of Virology by Bess et al., the authors admitted that all sorts of debris and extraneous matter banded at the same level as retroviruses in the sucrose medium, principally cellular microvescicles, something that Etienne de Harven had observed even in the 1960's. Material that bands at 1.16 does not represent purified retrovirus ('HIV'); therefore in examining the proteins that make up this soup, which belong to 'HIV' and which are merely cell debris etc? How can one derive a vaccine from all this stuff? How can you have a vaccine against vesicles?
Mr. Bennett's introduction of God to bolster his argument merely has the opposite effect. Mr. Bennett's references to Deity are clear proof if any more were needed that his 'belief' in 'HIV' is akin to theology rather than science. Belief in the Deity is merely state sanctioned irrationality identical to the scientifically sanctioned mass theological belief in 'HIV'.
Competing interests: None declared