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.
Rapid Response:
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
Competing interests: No competing interests