Send response to journal:
Regarding Mr Bennet's recent submission concerning HIV seroconversion and oxidative stress
Well, this entirley depends on whether HIV seroconversion actually exists.
Given that the cutoff for HIV seropositivity is entirely arbitrary, and depends on which type of test is used, and even using the same test, then depends on where the test is carried out, surely Mr Bennett's argument is spurious.
How can someone test positive in one country and not another (see disparity betwen the Western Blot and Elisa usage, differing results obtained by testees in different countries etc)?
Either someone is infected by the 'virus' or they are not, and if different test give different results, and the results of these tests, as we know, have to take into account supposed risk factors, then that allows for an abject lack of objectivity that renders these tests unscientific.
The whole point about HIV testing is that it is designed to assign a 'status' to certain individuals as a rsult of their supposed 'risk factors', and is therefore entirely unobjective and based on prejudice and not science.
Now even if Mr Bennett were correct in his rationality, once you take away the whole notion of HIV seropositivity from his argument, it collapses.
How can a test which is suposedly specific to a virus, but which which will reveal a positive result for people, say for example, suffering from MS be held to be entirely specific to the unseen virus knwon as HIV ?
This is virological claptrap, and it is unsurprising that
(a) people aren't particularly interested in 'AIDS' any more in the West
(b) South Africa, and many other regimes in the former colonised world, view the ARV scam with suspicion
Interestingly all of the conditions which are unrelated to 'HIV', whatever that is, which were listed in the Lancet, all feature oxidative stress as a significant part of their pathology.
Competing interests: None declared