Unanswered Questions for Dr.Peter J. Flegg: Still No Evidence that 'HIV' Exists 17 December 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
Writer/artist/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Unanswered Questions for Dr.Peter J. Flegg: Still No Evidence that 'HIV' Exists

Dr. Peter J. Flegg has still not answered my following questions and has not provided BMJ rapid response readers with visual references proving that 'HIV' exists but merely points to the NIAID 'HIV' propaganda document which has no credible scientific proof (that 'HIV' exists and causes 'AIDS') but assumptions, suppositions and unproven hypotheses signifying nothing. Please could Dr.Flegg possibily answer the following questions:

1) What convinces Dr. Flegg that 'HIV' is more lethal or toxic than 'AZT' or any 'anti-retroviral' HAART regime?

2) If a patient on AZT or any HAART regime dies, what "cause of death" is put down on the death certificate? Is it ever: "AZT poisoning" or "HAART poisoning" – or is it always "HIV related" - "due to complications arising from HIV infection"?

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

Dr. 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 strongly argue that we are all "HIV uninfected persons". 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 Dr. Flegg still prescribe AZT or any HAART regime 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, 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:

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.

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.

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