Reply to Nicholas Bennett: If 'HIV' really exists it should be visible 31 December 2004
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Nicholas Bennett: If 'HIV' really exists it should be visible

Regarding my questions concerning the lack of visual evidence of 'HIV' isolation, Mr. Bennett replied with yet more glaring obfuscation:

"There is no reason why an EM need be performed if other tests with appropriate controls will provide the same evidence. The EM picture will only show images of, hopefully, similarly shaped particles. There is only a superficial reason to assume that De Harvenís technique will work on HIV, when it was developed for a different virus."

If 'HIV' is a genuine, real 'virus' then de Harvenís well tried and tested methodology for viral isolation should work very well. De Harvenís standardised isolation methodology works for all viruses if they are present at a titre high enough to cause disease.

The fact that this method has never been used for 'HIV' is because no virus would be seen: there just simply is no virus ('HIV') there Ė even in patients deemed to have a so-called 'high viral load'.

Mr. Bennett concludes: "I'm also waiting for Mr Russell to acknowledge that he was wrong when he said that no animal retrovirus was transmitted horizontally, and that he accepts that preferential male to female transmission is entirely normal for such a virus."

Like 'HIV', 'SIV', 'BIV', 'FIV', 'MIV' are hypothetical constructs and have not been isolated or proven to be exogenous entities: it has only ever been assumed that they are exogenous, sexually transmitted retroviruses but no study to date has proven this.

Until Mr. Bennett can show that these 'HIV' associated genetic sequences are actually derived from viral particles by obtaining pure retroviral particles he will never be able to prove that 'HIV' is exogenous and a sexually transmitted retrovirus. Mr. Bennett must know that such pictures of densely packed, pure retroviral 'HIV' particles must be obtained from the fresh plasma of 'HIV' positive subjects rather than derived from cell culture. It is unscientific to call a genetic sequence an 'exogenous retrovirus' when the possibility that it could instead result from still unknown endogenous genetic processes. What Mr. Bennett is still naively calling 'HIV' is an endogenous epiphenomenon and not an exogenous entity. Hence: 'HIV' is not an STD.

I ask Mr. Bennett to give up his closed 'HIV' Belief system and open his mind and read: 'The Isolation of HIV: Has it been achieved? The Case Against', by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar F.Turner, John M. Papadimitriou, and David Causer.

CONCLUSION to claim that "The existence of the retrovirus HIV predicts that HIV DNA can be isolated from the chromosomal DNA of infected cells", one must first have proof of the existence of a unique molecule of DNA which is the genome of a unique retrovirus particle, HIV-1, which can only be obtained by isolating the retroviral particle. At present there is no such proof. Fisher et al and Levy et al selected a portion of the RNA which from the supernatant of "infected" HUT78 cells banded at 1.16gm/ml or had a certain length, reverse transcribed it and called it "HIV-1 DNA" . However, since neither they nor anybody else before or after them has shown that this RNA (cDNA) was even the constituent part of a particle, any particle retroviral or otherwise, the claim that the DNA is "Full length HIV-1" or "HIV- specific" cannot be substantiated. In the cell extracts of "transfected" cells Fisher et al and Levy et al found some proteins with molecular weights similar to the "HIV proteins" which reacted with AIDS patient sera. They also found reverse transcription of A(n).dT15 in the cell supernatant but presented no evidence that the proteins or the RT were constituents of a particle, viral or otherwise, and thus cannot claim that they have proven that the "transfected" cells "produce particles that contain reverse transcriptase, HIV specific antigens". Although Fisher and colleagues had an electron micrograph showing virus-like particles in the culture supernatant, they did not prove that the particles were indeed retroviral particles, or even that they had some of the most basic morphological and physical features of retroviral particles and thus they "could reflect non-viral material altogether".

Competing interests: None declared