Reply to Tony Floyd & Nicholas Bennett 9 February 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Reply to Tony Floyd & Nicholas Bennett

Tony Floyd stated:

"These days you cannot just dismiss thousands of scientific papers without being challenged and asked for references when you've quoted someone. With so many precedents provided by the 'perth group' you surely can't blame me for being suspicious as to whether or not arguments presented here have a factual basis?"

You can "dismiss thousands of scientific papers" if they are all based upon a mistaken premise that 'HIV' has been isolated. I wish Floyd would be far more "suspicious" of the 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis than being its passive propagator. I would like to remind Tony Floyd that the peer review system has completely broken down when it comes to publishing so-called 'HIV' research papers because there is no contesting counter-critique. As the legendary mathematician Serge Lang observed:

"The peer review system at present is being abused to obstruct or prevent scientific discussion, by Scientific American-Pour la Science, in addition to the major international magazines such as Nature and Science, and the funding agencies in the United States." Serge Lang: To the cc list for the HIV-Pour la Science file. Serge Lang goes on:

"To an extent that undermines classical standards of science, some purported scientific results concerning 'HIV' and 'AIDS' have been handled by press releases, by disinformation, by low-quality studies, and by some suppression of information, manipulating the media and people at large. When the official scientific press does not report correctly, or obstructs views dissenting from those of the scientific establishment, it loses credibility and leaves no alternative but to find information elsewhere.." Serge Lang, Challenges, Springer, 1998.

And Professor Gordon Stewart stated:

"...since 1990, Nature, Science, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and other mainline, peer-reviewed journals have preferred to reject papers by others besides my colleagues and myself containing verifiable data that throws doubt on the claim that AIDS is capable of causing epidemics in general populations of developed countries..."

Prof. Gordon Stewart, A paradigm under pressure, Index on Censorship, Vol.28, No.3, May/June 1999.

As a student Tony Floyd should always be questioning current scientific paradigms because consensus science is bad science and also challenge his teacher's assumptions and propositions. Or as C.H. Waddington; geneticist, stated: "The most formidable barrier to the advancement of science is the conventional wisdom of the dominant group".

Nicholas Bennett stated:

"I prefer to see it that we are supplying evidence that directly counters the (worthless) logic behind Mr Russell's arguments. Many, myself included, would reject an argument if it weren't supported by some evidence. Such evidence includes a reasonably sound knowledge base of the field (so that, for example, arguments that HIV virions MUST be isolated from peripheral blood, prior to claiming causation, can be rejected out of hand."

The logic behind my arguments are based upon deconstructing the illogical 'HIV/AIDS' hypothesis.

There is no "reasonably sound knowledge" that 'HIV' has been isolated from peripheral blood and Nicholas Bennett is not "supplying evidence" to prove that 'HIV' exists but merely quoting reference papers which are all based upon the mistaken premise that 'HIV' has been isolated. Nicholas Bennett's so-called "supplying evidence" merely means reiterating (and taking on trust) what Gallo, Montagnier or Ho happen to publish and not deconstructing their flawed logic.

Nicholas Bennett and Tony Floyd should be more critical and open minded to the counter-evidence rather be mere protectors and propagators of the flawed and failed 'HIV' hypothesis.

Competing interests: None declared