Re: Re: No scientific evidence no scientific debate 19 December 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,
Writer/artist/philosopher
WC1N 1PE

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: No scientific evidence no scientific debate

Mr. Bennett did not answer my points regarding his extraordinary admission in a recent rapid resonse:

"I accept that it means that EM of peripherally isolated HIV will likely never be done - because it doesn't need to be done."

Why doesn't it need to be done? It most certainly does need to be done - but Mr. Bennett is right in stating it never will be done, but not for the reason he states. The fact is that the current crop of virtual virologists dare not use the earlier, tried and trusted methods of viral isolation to find HIV in peripheral blood - because they know they would not find any particles at all. By affecting to disdain to use ultra centrifugation, pelletting down etc. they can perpetuate the myth of HIV proliferation and pathogenicity by using indirect 'surrogate markers', as introduced by Drr. Robert Gallo, Dr. David Ho and others.

Electronmicroscopist Prof. Etienne de Harven, in criticising the loss of precision due to the abandonment of EM in identifying and quantifying viruses, pointed out that the pretext they used for their abandonment (like Mr. Bennett) was that EMs were unnecessary, time consuming and too costly: de Harven stated: "Dangerously enough, EM was progressively dismissed in retrovirus research after 1970. Molecular biologists started to rely exclusively on various 'markers', and what was sedimenting in sucrose gradient at density 1.16 gm/ml was regarded as 'pure virus'. It is only in 1997, after fifteen years of intensive HIV research, that elementary EM controls were performed, with the disastrous results."

These "disastrous results" published in Virology 1997 (Gluschankof et al. and Bess et al.) did not show purified/isolated 'HIV' but a mass of cellular debris and microvesicles with three ambiguous dots which were arbitrarily identified as 'HIV'. Yet the authors of these papers give us no rational or logical explanation why these dots are 'HIV'.

If the methods of viral detection using indirect surrogate 'markers' Mr. Bennett trusts really work, then it is axiomatic that using the earlier methodology will only confirm their findings. It is time to clear up this point before 'HIV' research becomes even more irrational and ludicrous. Surely it would be worthwhile to spend a mere a few days with basic EM equipment to confirm visually the results obtained by using Mr. Bennett's "superior techniques"?

Can Mr. Bennett isolate 'HIV' via Prof. Etienne de Harven's well tried and tested methodology and give us real direct visual evidence that 'HIV' exists? Virtual virology - indirect 'surrogate markers' - will not suffice.

Competing interests: None declared