Can Bennett isolate 'HIV' via de Harven's methodology? 6 February 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Can Bennett isolate 'HIV' via de Harven's methodology?

Nicholas Bennett concluded in his condescending reply to Bruno Spagnoli:

"Vast amounts of money have been spent on HIV research, arguably at the expensive of other areas of important healthcare, but most of this money seems to me to be involved in the blue-skies molecular research of unravelling the virus. There is no need to re-invent the wheel by performing proof of causation experiments over and over again, at least not by the arguments put forward by people such as the Perth Group."

Indeed: vast amounts of money – billions of US research dollars - have been spent - and wasted - on 'inventing the virus' – not "unravelling the virus". Indeed: there is no "need to re-invent the wheel" as Nicholas Bennett rightly states but to use well tried and tested methods in virus isolation: something that has never been done with the hypothetical and non-isolated 'HIV'.

Regarding my earlier questions concerning the lack of visual evidence of 'HIV' isolation, Bennett replied with his usual 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 Harven’s technique will work on HIV, when it was developed for a different virus."

If Nicholas Bennett is so convinced that 'HIV' is a real 'virus' then Etienne de Harven’s well tried and tested methodology for viral isolation should work. De Harven’s 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 – even in patients deemed to have a so-called 'high viral load'.

I agree with Nicholas Bennett that there is no need to "re-invent the wheel" and therefore ask him to use de Harven's well known, tried and tested isolation methodology and prove to us that 'HIV' exists and that those billions of dollars spent on so-called 'HIV Research' ('HIV' Careerism') were not entirely wasted.

Bruno Spagnoli and The Perth Group maybe interested in replying to Nicholas Bennett's alarming admission:

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

To prove that 'HIV' exists it most certainly does need to be done - but Nicholas Bennett is right in stating it never will be done: they know that there is no real 'HIV' there in the first place so have to invent all sorts of indirect 'surrogate markers' and conjuring tricks of the virtual virology trade.

If Nicholas Bennett is so sure that 'HIV' exists he should be able to isolate 'HIV' via de Harven's methodology - and not sidetrack us with all the usual indirect surrogate metaphysical markers: it would take about two weeks of his time: a very short time in the twenty years of 'HIV' Research.

Competing interests: None declared