Reply to Flegg: What Stefan Lanka actually said in context 1 November 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Flegg: What Stefan Lanka actually said in context

Mr. Flegg tries in vain to rubbish my arguments by pointing out my 'economy' and 'selectivity':

"Russell stated: '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). In fact, there is a blatant omission in this quote. I presume Russell has left it out in order that the credibility of the source is not completely destroyed. Stephan Lanka actually stated: "I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses - as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous - in fact do not exist at all.' It is no wonder that Mr Russell was economical with the truth - with people like Lanka lending their support to the dissident cause, it makes the task of those who believe in HIV so much easier."

It was not "a blatant omission" as it was not part of the argument. I was not "economical with the truth": truth is economical. I did not need Lankaís other statements to back up my arguments that 'HIV' does not exist. Mr. Flegg fails to register that 'HIV' does not obey any virological rules and naively assumes that hepatitis, polio, ebola are real viruses: we simply do not know how to classify these 'things' so we call them 'viruses'.

Here BMJ readers can make up their own minds on what Lanka actually said in context from the Zenger's Magazine interview:

Dr Stefan Lanka: "I already had a somewhat critical attitude when I started studying molecular genetics, so I went to the library to look up the literature on HIV. To my big surprise, 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 was so deeply shocked. I was thinking, 'Well, Iím not experienced enough. I have overlooked something. On the other side, those people are absolutely sure.' Then I was afraid that speaking about this with my friends, or even my family, they would think is absolutely mad and crazy. So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retrovirusesó as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerousó in fact do not exist at all."

Zengerís: "So it was just on the basis of this reading that you concluded that what is called HIV, what is considered to be the 'HIV virus' and is supposed to be infectious like other viruses that are acknowledged pathogens, really represented a phenomenon within the body. How did you figure that out, and why are you so sure about it?"

Dr. Stefan Lanka: "I was wondering what viruses are for in evolution, because they didnít seem to have any function other than to be very dangerous and killing other cells. So I went into evolutionary biology and found that the first genetic molecule of life was RNA, and only later in evolution did DNA come into existence. Every one of our genomes, and that of higher plants and animals, is the product of so-called reverse transcription: RNA transcribed into DNA.

But I had already realized already by then that the thinking about molecular genetics was very dogmatic. In the early 1960ís they came up with the central dogma of molecular genetics, which try to uphold even today, and which is ridiculous. The dogma says that DNA behaves in a static way; DNA makes RNA; RNA cannot be transcribed back into DNA; RNA comes into existence only on the basis of DNA. That was and is the basis, of the central dogma of molecular genetics.

While studying the evolutionary aspects of biology, I quickly realized that reverse transcription is common to all forms of life , and in fact is the basis of all higher living. Later I learned that reverse transcription is a repair mechanism for chromosomal DNA. But the mainstream of molecular genetics is still committed to the central dogma: 'There is no such thing as reverse transcription from RNA to DNA.' In 1970, when they detected biochemically that there is a reverse flow of genetic material, they didnít give up the dogma or even try to change it. Instead, they called it an exception to the central dogma of molecular genetics, and explained it by postulating the existence of retroviruses."

Mark Gabrish Conlan interviews Stefan Lanka (from the December, 1998 issue of Zenger's Magazine).

Competing interests: None declared