Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' Dogmatists negate 'conventional thought'
Nicholas Bennett stated regarding critical 'AIDS' Analysts:
"There is no consistent view or aim, reflected in the regular
confused posts from newcomers to the dissident discussion boards.
Practically the only thing uniting them is a refusal to accept the
conventional thought."
On the contrary, critical 'AIDS' Analysts absolutely accept the
'conventional thought' (rules of virus isolation, etc), which is precisely
why we are questioning the proponents of the ‘HIV’ Hypothesis who
constantly ignore conventional thought about the practice of isolation,
etc.
It is precisely the total lack of "conventional thought" (and
conventional scientific practice) that mars the thinking of the proponents
of the 'HIV/AIDS' Hypothesis. For instance: when Koch’s Postulates, the
tried, trusted and ‘conventional’ method of proving the existence of a
pathogen were completely unfulfilled by 'HIV', the supporters of the 'HIV'
Hypothesis declared the Postulates to be rubbish.
Moreover, the 'conventional' rules for retrovirus isolation laid down
at a conference at the Pasteur Institute in 1974 were flagrantly ignored
by the scientific team working at the very same institute in 1983, who
claimed to have found a retrovirus in the tissues a homosexual man
suffering from lymphadonopathy merely by finding what they claimed to be
reversetranscriptase activity and other dubious surrogate markers.
However, when subsequently challenged, Luc Montagnier, the leader of the
team, admitted that they did not find or isolate any viral particles, and
despite heroic laboratory efforts - described by Montagnier, as "Roman
efforts" – no 'HIV' was found. If 'HIV' does not fit the conventional
rules, they rubbish those rules, move the goal posts and rewrite the rules
of the game – then shoehorn 'HIV' in as a 'killer pathogen' when in fact
it is nothing of the kind.
From the outset it was claimed, in order to explain the
embarrassingly elastic incubation period of 'HIV/AIDS' – said to be
anything from 10 to 30 years between putative 'infection' and onset of
disease - that 'HIV' was a lentivirus, a slow acting retrovirus. Yet now
we are told that 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' in a matter of months in Africa and
the Third World. Is 'HIV' a 'lentivirus' or not? As Peter Duesberg stated:
"There are no slow viruses – only slow virologists." Why is it that there
is still no heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West whilst there is
allegedly a heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in South Africa?
We are not 'dissidents' or 'denialists' but deconstructionists –
critical and autonomous 'AIDS' Analysts teasing out the absurdities,
anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions of the redundant 'HIV'
Hypothesis.
It is the propagators of 'HIV' dogma who constantly and consistently
refuse to accept conventional thought (and practice) and merely make up
the rules as they go along – changing the rules virtually daily – to
patch up the tottering 'HIV' Hypothesis.
Rapid Response:
Reply to Bennett: 'HIV' Dogmatists negate 'conventional thought'
Nicholas Bennett stated regarding critical 'AIDS' Analysts:
"There is no consistent view or aim, reflected in the regular
confused posts from newcomers to the dissident discussion boards.
Practically the only thing uniting them is a refusal to accept the
conventional thought."
On the contrary, critical 'AIDS' Analysts absolutely accept the
'conventional thought' (rules of virus isolation, etc), which is precisely
why we are questioning the proponents of the ‘HIV’ Hypothesis who
constantly ignore conventional thought about the practice of isolation,
etc.
It is precisely the total lack of "conventional thought" (and
conventional scientific practice) that mars the thinking of the proponents
of the 'HIV/AIDS' Hypothesis. For instance: when Koch’s Postulates, the
tried, trusted and ‘conventional’ method of proving the existence of a
pathogen were completely unfulfilled by 'HIV', the supporters of the 'HIV'
Hypothesis declared the Postulates to be rubbish.
Moreover, the 'conventional' rules for retrovirus isolation laid down
at a conference at the Pasteur Institute in 1974 were flagrantly ignored
by the scientific team working at the very same institute in 1983, who
claimed to have found a retrovirus in the tissues a homosexual man
suffering from lymphadonopathy merely by finding what they claimed to be
reversetranscriptase activity and other dubious surrogate markers.
However, when subsequently challenged, Luc Montagnier, the leader of the
team, admitted that they did not find or isolate any viral particles, and
despite heroic laboratory efforts - described by Montagnier, as "Roman
efforts" – no 'HIV' was found. If 'HIV' does not fit the conventional
rules, they rubbish those rules, move the goal posts and rewrite the rules
of the game – then shoehorn 'HIV' in as a 'killer pathogen' when in fact
it is nothing of the kind.
From the outset it was claimed, in order to explain the
embarrassingly elastic incubation period of 'HIV/AIDS' – said to be
anything from 10 to 30 years between putative 'infection' and onset of
disease - that 'HIV' was a lentivirus, a slow acting retrovirus. Yet now
we are told that 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' in a matter of months in Africa and
the Third World. Is 'HIV' a 'lentivirus' or not? As Peter Duesberg stated:
"There are no slow viruses – only slow virologists." Why is it that there
is still no heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in the West whilst there is
allegedly a heterosexual 'HIV' epidemic in South Africa?
We are not 'dissidents' or 'denialists' but deconstructionists –
critical and autonomous 'AIDS' Analysts teasing out the absurdities,
anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions of the redundant 'HIV'
Hypothesis.
It is the propagators of 'HIV' dogma who constantly and consistently
refuse to accept conventional thought (and practice) and merely make up
the rules as they go along – changing the rules virtually daily – to
patch up the tottering 'HIV' Hypothesis.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests