Alexander H Russell,
Send response to journal:
Nicholas Bennett stated:
"I would argue that the lack of a 'white heterosexual epidemic' of HIV in the developed world is largely due to an effective public education campaign in the 1980's."
History has shown this to be blatantly untrue. Can Bennett explain why, if everyone has been using condoms to prevent the supposed spread of 'HIV', there has been such a massive increase in STI/STD's and unwanted pregnancies in the West? Today thousands of white heterosexuals practice condom-free 'unsafe sex' yet there is no heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West.
Bennett further stated:
"Two large questions arise from Mr Russell's continual ascertation that HIV is endogenous: If that were so, wouldn't we expect a 'white heterosexual epidemic' regardless of public health campaigns?
No: for several simple reasons:
1. 'HIV' does not cause 'AIDS'.
2. 'HIV' is a harmless, endogenous epiphenomenon.
3. 'HIV' is an ubiquitous, usually dormant entity; it will only be detectable in those who are susceptible to certain diseases due to a) lifestyle in the developed world – homosexuals, drug-users, and b) prevailing endemic diseases such as malaria and TB and other diseases related to poverty and malnutrition in the developing world.
The vast majority of white heterosexuals are not 'diseased' and therefore will not test 'HIV' positive. However, despite practicing 'safe sex' using condoms since the mid nineteen eighties homosexuals still form the largest group at people at risk for 'AIDS' in Europe and the USA. It can be argued that homosexuals use condoms far more responsibly than heterosexuals so why should they still form the largest group at the risk for 'AIDS' - how can this be? If stopping this supposed spread of 'HIV' by condom use does not prevent 'AIDS' – then what is causing it?
It has become obvious to anyone who observes that 'AIDS' is not an 'equal opportunities disease' since it is clear now that not 'everyone is at risk' - as we were all originally promised. After 20 years, still only certain specific groups in Western society develop 'AIDS' - therefore 'HIV' cannot be the cause of disease.
When the predicted epidemic of 'AIDS' in the general population in the West proved to be a flop and people stayed away in their millions the cynical powers that be took their dog and pony show on tour to Africa and all points East to the developing world where it is yet again a resounding flop. Now even Bill Gates and Tony Blair realise that the true causes of deaths in Africa are the old enemies malaria, TB and poverty in general as they stated at the World Economic Forum (BBC News: January 27, 2005).
Bennett goes on: "If that were so, wouldn't HIV DNA be found in all cells of all human beings, rather than only some cells in HIV+ human beings?"
Fragments of DNA identical to that of 'HIV' are found in all human beings. For instance, the gene that encodes reverse transcription is found in all mammalian and plant cells, but the process of reverse transcription was only recognised by Temin and his colleagues in 1970.
Bennett concludes: "As regards sexual transmission, I refer Mr Russell to the work of McMichael and others with the HIV-resistant prostitutes in Nairobi."
How many female prostitutes in Europe and USA have 'HIV'? Early studies preceding condomania showed that only those European prostitutes using recreational drugs tested 'HIV' positive. No female prostitutes have been known to 'infect' their clients with 'HIV'.
As for supposed 'sexual transmission', I suggest Bennett reads Nancy Padian, et. al., "Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 146, #4 (August 15, 1997), pp. 350- 57. This paper makes it abundantly clear that 'HIV' is extremely unlikely to be transmitted sexually in the USA. Why should Africa be different? Remember: people living in the consumer capitalist West are far more sexually promiscuous (practicing unsafe sex) than those living in poverty and disease stricken Africa and the developing world. Bennett, Noble and Flegg have not proven to BMJ rapid response readers that 'HIV' is an STI/STD. Why not?
Mr. Bennett goes on:
"Mr Russell can say that the predictions haven't been fulfilled, but that is just his opinion, rather than the facts. I repeat: HIV serology precedes AIDS."
It has nothing to do with my 'opinion'. What are these so called 'facts' Bennett speaks of? Saying that "HIV serology precedes AIDS" is an absurd circular (non) argument where the one ('HIV') is built into the definition of the other ('AIDS'); you simply cannot have one without the other. Bennett cannot see the idiotic circularity of the 'HIV/AIDS' construct where one defines the other.
Thus this 100% constructed 'perfect correlation' ('HIV' = 'AIDS' and 'AIDS' = 'HIV')) is not a natural coincidence but a 'perfect artefact' of the artificial definition of 'AIDS' by its hypothetical cause, 'HIV'. It is one of the purest examples of circular logic. By using such chicanery there will always be a 100% correlation between 'HIV' and 'AIDS' and Bennett is tragically trapped and interpellated into this idiocy. Correlation is not proof of causation.
Dr Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry and inventor of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) stated regarding the uselessness of the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis:
"Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo...As applied, the HIV theory is unfalsifiable, and useless as a medical hypothesis… I can't find a single virologist who will give me references which show HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If you ask...you don't get an answer, you get fury."
Dr Kary Mullis thinks that the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis is "one hell of a mistake."
As Professor Peter Duesberg observed:
TB + 'HIV' = 'AIDS'.
TB – 'HIV' = TB.
Dementia + 'HIV' = 'AIDS'
Dementia – 'HIV' = Stupidity
As Duesberg argued: 'AIDS' is defined as any of 30 existing diseases in the presence of the putative 'HIV'. Therefore the correlation between 'HIV' and 'AIDS' is 100% by definition. Duesberg said: "It was a great triumph for the AIDS establishment to take these different diseases and put them all in the same uniform labelled AIDS" . The 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis has failed all its predictions.
Competing interests: None declared