Peter Flegg grossly misrepresented Stefan Lanka out of context 24 February 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Alexander H Russell,

Send response to journal:
Re: Peter Flegg grossly misrepresented Stefan Lanka out of context

For the second time at BMJ rapid responses Peter Flegg has grossly misrepresented Stefan Lanka by citing him out of context:

"Forgive me if I find it quite ironic that a writer/artist/philosopher (Russell) suggests to a postdoctoral PhD fellow in Infectious Diseases (Bennett) that he should sadly obtain "some form, any form, of education in the field" in order to appreciate that HIV does not exist, while quoting a "virologist" (Lanka) who believes that "viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous in fact do not exist at all" as the source for his evidence."

I do not "find it quite ironic" but merely a public display of Flegg's ignorance here: one has to study virology in the first place to realise where virology has gone wrong. Lanka does not lazily accept our dominant fashionable virological paradigms where as Bennett and Flegg do: they believe what they are told in text books.

Flegg, as a physician, and Bennett, as a postdoctoral PhD fellow in Infectious Diseases, have a curiously naïve and layman's 'commonsense' world view of what constitutes 'virology' and 'viruses': they still believe what they are told in text books without doing their own deconstructive critiques. Yet again (see BMJ rapid responses: 1st November, 2004) Flegg lifts quotes out of context and thus distorts the meaning of what Lanka and I are actually saying.

My original quote was from Dr, Stefan Lanka was: "I already had a somewhat critical attitude when I started studying molecular genetics, so I went to the library to look up the literature on HIV. To my big surprise, I found that when they are speaking about HIV they are not speaking about a virus. They are speaking about cellular characteristics and activities of cells under very special conditions. I was so deeply shocked…So for a long time I studied virology, from the end to the beginning, from the beginning to the end, to be absolutely sure that there was no such thing as HIV. And it was easy for me to be sure about this because I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses - as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous - in fact do not exist at all." (Stefan Lanka interviewed by Mark Gabrish Conlan, Zenger's Magazine, San Diego -October 1998).

Lanka raises legitimate questions here that need to be addressed: what exactly is a 'virus'? What evidence is there that 'Ebola' is a real isolated 'virus'? It could even be argued that Ebola was a man made laboratory artefact, as Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz has claimed? (See: Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola - Nature, Accident or Genocide?, Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 1996).

I ask Flegg: what constitutes a 'virus'? Who authorises the peer- reviewing and policing of the taxonomic classification of 'viruses'? Who in authority authorises the authors of 'viruses'? What is a 'virus'? What are the 'politics' of 'virus' inventing? After all: today science is totally corrupted by politics. Who says so? To clarify the complex situation to Flegg I conclude with what Stefan Lanka wrote in December 2001:

"In the case of the influenza- herpes-, vaccinia-, polio-, adeno- and ebola-viruses each photo shows only a single particle; nobody claims that they´re isolated particles, let alone particles that have been isolated from humans. In summary, it must be said that these photos are an attempt of fraud committed by the researchers and medical scientists involved, as far as they assert that these structures are viruses or even isolated viruses. To what extent the involved journalists and authors of textbooks have contributed to this fraud knowingly or only out of gross negligence, I don´t know. Everyone who starts a researcher in the medical literature, will quickly encounter statements and references that Koch´s first postulate can´t be fulfilled (i.e. Großgebauer: Eine kurze Geschichte der Mikroben, 1997 ["a little story of the microbes"]; editor: Verlag für angewandte Wissenschaft). How these authors who claim the existence of viruses could overlook that, remains a riddle.

Could it be that the term 'Contagium' = 'Gift' (poison/toxin) = 'Virus' from the 18th and 19th century was applied in the 20th century to the cell components which were named 'viruses' since the electron microscope was introduced in 1931? And in order to hide this, the 'disease causing viruses' have often been described but never been isolated? And then they were used as seemingly logical explanation for poisonings and adverse affects of vaccination, as Luhmann (1995) (i.e.) writes about the symptomatic of Hepatitis B, which was observed for the first time in 1985 following smallpox vaccinations, and 1938 following measles vaccinations? The copies in the textbooks show only structures within cells and nothing that looks like isolation and thus homogenous. The biochemical characterization, which is crucial, lacks completely." (Dr. Stefan Lanka Exposes The 'Viral Fraud': Pictures of 'Isolated Viruses' Debunked, December, 2001).

Flegg, as a physician, and Bennett, as a postdoctoral PhD fellow in Infectious Diseases, are obviously not going to admit that they made a tragic mistake and inform patients and the public alike that 'HIV' is not an 'infectious virus' but endogenous epiphenomenon: they are interpellated and seemingly trapped within the 'HIV' paradigm and refuse to re-educate themselves but continuously repeat the mythical 'HIV' mantra.

The taxonomic classification of 'HIV' (22-23 May, 1986) was ostensibly a political move and a strategic invention to present a nomenclature that would unify a diversely identified putative 'retrovirus': human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III ('HTLV-III'), immunodeficiency-associated virus ('IDAV'), aids-associated retrovirus ('ARV') and lymphadenopathy-associated virus ('LAV'). The not so hidden agenda behind this politically expedient move was to enforce the 'belief' that an alleged 'human retrovirus' caused 'immunodeficiency'.

Thus the manufacturing of 'HIV' hegemonic (misinformed) consent reinforced a 'retroviral' episteme for 'AIDS' causation. However, to date, 'HIV' has still not proved to be a human immuno-deficiency virus. If the function of a name is to designate its individuality, then clearly 'HIV' was a baptism by mistaken identity. The moment of fictional baptism was reported in Science (Harold Varmus et al., 9 May, 1986), in which eleven of the thirteen members of a subcommittee - ("empowered by the International Committee on the taxonomy of Viruses") - nominated 'HIV'.

I would like to remind Flegg and Bennett that there was no isolated evidence then (as now) that this material was a putative 'retrovirus' that caused 'immunodeficiency'. The acronym 'HIV' is misleading and meaningless and should no longer be used by scientific journals and the scientific community and the mass media alike.

Competing interests: None declared