It is high time Messrs. Flegg, Floyd, Noble, Bennet, Rumbold rethink the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis 15 November 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: It is high time Messrs. Flegg, Floyd, Noble, Bennet, Rumbold rethink the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis

Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, admits that a problem of unmoderated forums is that one side of an argument can "lose by attrition" to a more vocal minority. (1)

Quoting the above (1), Mr. Tony Floyd asked: "Has Peter Flegg just undergone such attrition? Perhaps it is for the best that he ignores certain monomaniacs. It would be a real shame if he backed away from contributing to BMJ Responses altogether."

Mr. Flegg has certainly 'backed away' from answering any of my questions concerning the anomalies, inconsistencies and flaws in the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis for the simple reason that he cannot answer them. 'HIV' Monotheism is indeed worshiped by medico-monomaniacs who have no other 'cause'.

When journalist Neville Hodgkinson started rigorously questioning the 'HIV/AIDS' paradigm in the early 1990's he said to me that he never received reasoned scientific argument but emotive abuse and ad hominem attacks similar to those that I have received here at BMJ Rapid Responses. Interestingly it is always the 'AIDS' establishment, and not the 'AIDS' dissidents, who respond with irrational, subjective and non-scientific responses.

'HIV' Believers such as Peter Flegg, Tony Floyd, Nicholas Bennett, Christopher Noble and Dr. John Rumbold come across as miffed and vindictive school boys - verging on manic hysteria - who affect to disdain to answer my perfectly legitimated questions. Instead of engaging in rational scientific debate they look down on 'AIDS' dissenters coming across as patronising and condescending with snide asides. They uncannily display themselves as Protectors of the 'HIV' Faith and label us as 'heretics' and 'HIV' Denialists. This religious rhetoric reveals that the 'HIV' construct is not a discourse of science but an article of faith. But 'belief' and 'faith' are alien to 'empirical evidence' and 'hard science'.

To date: Messrs. Flegg, Floyd, Noble, Bennet, Rumbold have not proven that 'HIV' is an STD or proven that 'HIV' exists via visual (EM) evidence. I ask them to read the following extract from by Neville Hodgkinson: Predicted Heterosexual Epidemics Never Happened from AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe? (Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 87-120, 2003) and hope they can read it with an open-mind and without the aid of their rose-tinted 'HIV' spectacles:

"In prosperous countries, the predictions of spread of the virus that was said not to discriminate have proved wildly wrong. Wherever AIDS deaths can be properly tracked, they remain linked to the original risk groups. In cases where none of those risks are apparent, the ill-effects of long-term use of antibiotics as well as antiviral drugs, and the intensely damaging effect of an HIV diagnosis may have been to blame.

In 1992, when AIDS cases were already falling in the US and Europe, experts agreed on an arbitrary widening of the range of disorders eligible for registration as AIDS, including, for the first time, HIV-positive people with no illness but with T4 cell counts below 200, as well as women with cervical cancer. In the US, this produced an artificial doubling in the number of AIDS cases reported, but despite further expansions in classification, registrations have been declining ever since. About 650,000 cases of AIDS were registered in the USA from 1982 to mid-1998, and three quarters of those were clearly identified as occurring within high-risk groups.

The exclusion of research into other possible causes of AIDS that accompanied the establishment of the HIV paradigm may already have cost many lives, through failure to provide more effective advice on prevention and treatment. The efforts of those calling for a scientific reappraisal of the 'HIV' hypothesis have usually been met with indifference and on occasions, abuse. In common with Duesberg, I have been called a "pariah of my profession" for broadcasting flaws in AIDS science to the public, bypassing the silence on this subject maintained by most mainstream scientific and medical journals and their supporters in the mainstream media.

In the earlier years of AIDS, after US, British and French scientists successfully marketed the 'deadly new virus' concept and the tests and treatments that went with it, the perception that there was a public health emergency made it hard for dissenting views to be expressed. Today, the silence may owe as much to the power of commercial interests, along with embarrassment over the failures of AIDS science, as to any altruistic motives. Perhaps also it is easier on the West’s conscience to keep blaming an epidemic of a deadly new virus for an increase in immune deficiency in less-developed countries than it is to acknowledge the effects of worsening poverty consequent on economic restructuring, crippling debt, and the after-effects of decades of socially destructive policies towards black people such as under the apartheid regime. A reasoned response from the scientific community to the full range of evidence that has mounted against the HIV theory is overdue."

It is high time Messrs. Flegg, Floyd, Noble, Bennet, Rumbold rethink the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis bearing in mind the legitimate scientific findings of the Perth Group, Stefan Lanka and Eteinne de Harven who question the very existence of 'HIV'. It is high time that these 'HIV' Believers faced reality and faced the fact that there never will be a Western heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic simply and purely because 'HIV' is not an STD. Giving up cultist belief systems can be psychically painful but then the truth hurts. People have survived the brainwashing of Scientology so I am confident they can survive the mass-hypnosis of the 'HIV' trance. We need to overthrow 'HIV' Monotheism to find the true multifactorial auses of 'AIDS'.

Competing interests: None declared