Question for Flegg et al: Where is the evidence that 'HIV' is the cause of 'AIDS'? 25 October 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Question for Flegg et al: Where is the evidence that 'HIV' is the cause of 'AIDS'?

Tony Floyd assumes consensus science is true science:

"The conclusion of Pascale's paper 'Taken together, clinical and academic studies clearly demonstrate that HIV is the causative agent of AIDS' is the consensus view and in agreement with the best available evidence."

Consensus science is bad science. Consensus science is the deadliest enemy of the truth and progress in science and medicine. Agreement merely means going along the errors made in the political taxonomy of 'HIV'. The so-called’ best evidence available’ is no evidence at all. There is no hard 'evidence' that 'HIV' exists. How can an endogenous epiphenomenon be a 'causative agent of AIDS'?

The taxonomic classification of 'HIV' (22-23 May, 1986) was ostensibly a strategic invention to present a nomenclature that would unify a diversely identified putative 'retrovirus': human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III ('HTLV-III'), immunodeficiency-associated virus ('IDAV'), aids-associated retrovirus ('ARV') and lymphadenopathy- associated virus ('LAV'). The not so hidden agenda behind this politically expedient move was to enforce the 'belief' that an alleged 'human retrovirus' caused 'immunodeficiency'.

Thus the manufacturing of 'HIV' hegemonic (misinformed) consent reinforced a 'retroviral' episteme for 'aids' causation. However, thirteen years on 'HIV' has still not proved to be a human immuno-deficiency virus. If the function of a name is to designate its individuality, then clearly 'HIV' was a baptism by mistaken identity. The moment of fictional baptism was reported in Science (Harold Varmus et al., 9 May, 1986), in which eleven of the thirteen members of a subcommittee - ("empowered by the International Committee on the taxonomy of Viruses") - nominated 'HIV' – without isolated evidence that this material was a human immunodeficiency virus. F. Brown, President, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, wrote to Nature (20th June, 1986):

At a meeting on 22 and 23 May 1986 the Executive Committee of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) endorsed the name human immunodeficiency virus recently proposed by a large majority of the members of a study group of ICTV headed by Harold Varmus (Letters, 9 May, p.697) as appropriate for retrovirus isolates implicated as causing the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The new name describes the host and a major biological property of the virus from isolates of human T cell lymphotropic virus types I and II...the committee recommends the use of the name human immunodeficiency virus as the vernacular name to replace HTLV-III and LAV.

Contrary to F. Brown's claim, the "new name" could not describe "the host and a major biological property of the virus...". There was no isolated evidence then (as now) that this amorphous stuff was a putative 'retrovirus' that caused 'immunodeficiency'. The acronym 'HIV' is meaningless. The Executive Committee of the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses should be charged under an appropriate jurisdiction for ratifying a fictional nomenclature.

There is no 'gold standard' definition of 'HIV', as Eleopulos et al. state:

"There is no agreement on the precise taxonomic classification of HIV. Initially, HIV was reported as an Oncoviral type-C particle, then a type-D particle, and then as a member of a different Subfamily, a Lentivirus..." ('Has Gallo proven the role of HIV in AIDS?', Eleni Eleopulos et al., Emergency Medicine, 1993). While virologist, Dr. Stefan Lanka has long argued that 'HIV' is non-viral material:

"I found that when they are speaking about HIV they are not speaking about a virus. They are speaking about cellular characteristics and activities of cells under very special conditions...I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses, in fact do not exist at all.” (Zenger's Magazine, December, 1998).

Competing interests: None declared