Re: Re: Request for Peter Flegg 11 November 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
artist/writer/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Request for Peter Flegg

Mr. Peter Flegg falsely stated: "Mr Russell's questions have been addressed so many times before over the last 18 months or so I have lost count. He just doesn't accept the answers he receives."

I have not received any answers whatsoever merely obfuscation through the virtual virology language games.

Mr. Flegg goes on: "I apologise to him for backing up my rapid responses with references to hard science (the sort of evidence that Russell calls 'meaningless papers published in prestigious journals') I don't know a better way of demonstrating the validity of my statements."

Mr. Flegg misses my argument: in repeatedly making illusory "references to hard science" he fails to register - again and again - that these thousand of 'HIV' research papers are all based and founded on a mistaken premise that an isolated entity 'HIV' exists.

To answer Mr. Flegg: a better way of demonstrating the 'validity' of 'statements' is by focussing on the aporias or impasses of their meaning. A deconstructive reading of an 'HIV' text always undercuts its own assumptions about 'retrovirology', its own system of illogic, its internal contradictions, its inconsistencies. Hence all the 200,000 plus 'HIV' papers are pure science fiction and have to connection or reference to and with the realities in and of the world. The insular and metaphysical language of 'HIV research' and 'retrovirology' does not refer to any external reality - it merely refers to its internal virtual virological language games.

Yet Mr. Flegg just naively and gullibly accepts what he reads in these so-called "references to hard science" as 'fact' and does not bring into question their assumed 'authority' and 'authorship'. If an 'HIV' research paper is published in Nature, Science, or The Lancet, Mr. Flegg 'believes' that it must be 'true'. After all, they would not publish 'lies' because they are 'prestigious publications'.

Mr. Flegg goes on: "Mr Russell only believes what he wants to believe anyway, or what he reads in HIV-denialist web sites, and nothing anyone can say will convince him otherwise."

Here Mr. Flegg uses the language of theology and not science: I do not 'believe' in anything: 'belief' has nothing to do with 'hard objective science'. Mr. Flegg also uses that embarrassing and tedious theological term 'HIV denialist'. Mr. Flegg sounds so evangelical here and comes across as a true 'HIV believer'. I am an 'HIV deconstructionist' not an not 'HIV denialist'.

Mr. Flegg aptly concludes with his usual non-scientific sarcasm and silliness: "I have no plans to react to Mr Russell's persistent and increasingly histrionic attempts at disinformation. Someone else can feed the trolls."

Ad hominem attacks are no substitute of reasoned scientific argument. Mr. Flegg's kitsch 'belief' in 'trolls' is apt for an 'HIV' believer.

Competing interests: None declared