It is my considered opinion after reading many arguments for and
against, and speaking to persons deemed to be 'HIV posititve', that the
jury is still out on the question of whether HIV actually exists.
Is it not true that HIV has yet to be definitively isolated, and
hence anything purporting to be a 'HIV test' must therefore be suspect?
Does the current crop of 'HIV test' not show positive for around 60
different disorders, including M.E., polio, hepatitis? Do the figures
supplied in the article take account of the probable 'mis-diagnoses' of
the 'HIV positive' status as a pre-AIDS state?
Reading of the French investigative TV journalist Djamei Tahi's
conversations with Luc Montagnier in camera at the Pasteur Institute in
Paris on 17th July 1997, Montagnier admitted that he had not isolated HIV
and their electron microcope pictures had been taken from culture, not
purification, so pure HIV had not been identified; he also said that he
did not know if Gallo had really purified to identify HIV.
In other words, up to 1997 it would appear that all the HIV -hype was
scientifically groundless as HIV had not been isolated or identified
therefore did not exist. Has the picture changed since then?
To have so many Africans 'infected with HIV', where the only strong
evidence is that of 'HIV testing', suggests that our global experts
require to rapidly reach concensus on whether HIV exists or not - and I do
not mean political concensus which appears to be the current position - I
mean scientific concensus the like of which cannot at the moment exist.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
29 November 1999
John P Heptonstall
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Rapid Response:
Does HIV exist?
It is my considered opinion after reading many arguments for and
against, and speaking to persons deemed to be 'HIV posititve', that the
jury is still out on the question of whether HIV actually exists.
Is it not true that HIV has yet to be definitively isolated, and
hence anything purporting to be a 'HIV test' must therefore be suspect?
Does the current crop of 'HIV test' not show positive for around 60
different disorders, including M.E., polio, hepatitis? Do the figures
supplied in the article take account of the probable 'mis-diagnoses' of
the 'HIV positive' status as a pre-AIDS state?
Reading of the French investigative TV journalist Djamei Tahi's
conversations with Luc Montagnier in camera at the Pasteur Institute in
Paris on 17th July 1997, Montagnier admitted that he had not isolated HIV
and their electron microcope pictures had been taken from culture, not
purification, so pure HIV had not been identified; he also said that he
did not know if Gallo had really purified to identify HIV.
In other words, up to 1997 it would appear that all the HIV -hype was
scientifically groundless as HIV had not been isolated or identified
therefore did not exist. Has the picture changed since then?
To have so many Africans 'infected with HIV', where the only strong
evidence is that of 'HIV testing', suggests that our global experts
require to rapidly reach concensus on whether HIV exists or not - and I do
not mean political concensus which appears to be the current position - I
mean scientific concensus the like of which cannot at the moment exist.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: No competing interests