An AZT Quiz and an HIV Test for Peter J. Flegg 11 December 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: An AZT Quiz and an HIV Test for Peter J. Flegg

Mr. Peter Flegg revealingly stated:

"I see no point of tackling broad queries such as "What is the evidence that 'HIV' exists?", which has been debated to exhaustion with the Perth Group over the years- if they do not believe any of the evidence put to them from hundreds of experts in the field, thousands of publications, and several papers specifically addressing this issue from centres like the NIAID, I doubt anything I could say here will change their mind."

I would like to remind Mr. Flegg that all the above mentioned 'evidence' that 'HIV' exists from "thousands of publications" and from "hundreds of experts in the field" is all based upon a mistaken premise that 'HIV' has been isolated (i.e. exists) and has shown to be a causative agent of a disease. The Perth Group "do not believe in any of the evidence" purely and simply because there is no evidence – which is why the Perth Group rightly persist in their rigorous scientific questioning and debating and thinking – what scientists are supposed to do: science is no about belief or believing. Centres like NIAID are merely a propaganda institution disseminating, perpetuating and propagating 'HIV' propaganda. Mr. Flegg will always point BMJ Rapid Response readers to NIAID as a 'reference' point of 'authority' without having the intellectual autonomy (or scientific rigour) to question the NIAID Bible belt of 'HIV' belief. The hallmark of a viable hypothesis is that predictions based upon it will be fulfilled: this has never been the case of the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis: all the figures have had to be finagled; definitions (of 'AIDS') expanded; new diseases added in to keep the figures; and most recently, in Africa, the diseases malaria and TB (which have always killed millions) are now bracketed with 'HIV/AIDS'.

Hence: thousands of papers based upon a mistaken premise are completely worthless: Mr. Flegg can quote as many thousands of these metaphysical 'HIV' related papers but they are all based upon science fiction – not science fact.

Here is a quick and easy 'do-it-yourself' AZT and 'HIV' Test for Mr.Peter J. Flegg:

1) What convinces Mr.Flegg that 'HIV' is more lethal or toxic than 'AZT'?

2) If a patient on AZT or any HAART treatment regime dies, what 'cause of death' is put on the death certificate death? Is it ever AZT poisoning or HAART poising – or is it always 'HIV' related - "due to complications arising from HIV infection" (as the usual 'AIDS speak' mantra goes)? There is no evidence that 'HIV' is the cause of anything – apart from rising profits for ‘HIV’ multinational pharmaceuticals.

3) Where is the reference for a published electronmicrograph of isolated/purified 'HIV'? To date none have been published. The papers published in Virology 1997 by Gluschankof et al. and Bess et al. did not give us visual confirmation that 'HIV' had been isolated/purified (i.e. proven to exist).

4) If Mr. Flegg had the 'knowledge' (insight) that 'HIV' had not been isolated/purified (had not been proven to exist) – would he still prescribe his hypothetical patients cytotoxic AZT and HAART regimes?

Mr. Flegg recently stated in a BMJ rapid response: "…no-one would propose giving potentially toxic drugs to HIV 'uninfected persons' in some form of comparative study."

I would argue that every person is 'HIV' uninfected and ask Mr. Flegg if it is really legal, rational, logical or ethical to prescribe a cytotoic drug like AZT to anyone?

Or as Dr. Roberto A. Giraldo stated: unless the blood sample in grossly diluted, everyone will test positive for 'HIV' – which in fact means that no one is 'infected' with 'HIV'.

Would Mr. Flegg still prescribe AZT or any HAART cocktail after reading the following text by Dr. Roberto A. Giraldo?

'Everyone Reacts Positive on the ELISA Tests for HIV', by Dr. Roberto A. Giraldo Continuum (London) Winter 1998/9 5(5): 8-10:


The following are three possible explanations for why undiluted specimens of blood always react positive at the ELISA test:

3.1. Everybody has HIV antibodies. It is accepted worldwide that the ELISA test for HIV detects antibodies against what is known as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (3-6). And the pharmaceutical company that commercializes the ELISA kits states that "Abbott HIVAB HIV-1 EIA is an in vitro qualitative Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in Human Serum and Plasma".

Since all undiluted blood specimens react positive on the ELISA test, a test that supposedly tests for antibodies to HIV, the results presented here suggest that every single human being has HIV antibodies. And this suggests that everybody has been exposed to HIV antigens. This would mean that all of us have been exposed to the virus that is believed to be the cause of AIDS. The people that react positive even at a dilution of 1:400, would be the ones that have had the highest level of exposure to HIV antigens. The rest of the people - the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum [1:1] - would have had a lower level of exposure to HIV.

3.2. Everybody has different levels of HIV infection. It is also believed worldwide that a person that reacts positive for antibodies against HIV has not only been exposed to but is infected with a deadly virus that causes immunedeficiency. Therefore, the positive reactions of all undiluted serums would mean that everybody, or at least all the blood samples that I have tested, including my own, are infected with this "deadly" virus. The ones that react positive at a ratio of 1:400 would simply have a higher level of 'deadly' infection than the "deadly" infection had by the ones that only react positive with undiluted serum.

3.3. The test is not specific for HIV. The results presented here could also mean that the tests used for detecting antibodies to HIV are not specific for HIV, as has been explained previously. In this case, there would be reasons other than HIV infection, past or present, to explain why a person reacts positive to it. The test also reacts positive in the absence of HIV.

The scientific literature has documented more than 70 different reasons for getting a positive reaction other than past or present infection with HIV All these conditions have in common a history of polyantigenic stimulations.

Since there is no scientific evidence that the ELISA test is specific for HIV antibodies, a reactive ELISA test at any concentration of the serum would mean presence of non-specific or polyspecific antibodies. These antibodies could be present in all blood samples. They are most likely a result of the stress response, having no relation to any retrovirus, let alone HIV. In this case, a reactive test could be a measure of the degree of one’s exposure to stressor or oxidizing agents.

The inevitable conclusion is that all positive reactions for antibodies to HIV are simply false positives. If nobody is positive for HIV, then people who react positive on the ELISA test do so due to something other than HIV.

Competing interests: None declared