As a follow-up to a previous post on issues parallel to AGW, I will here bring to your attention a recent paper published online the Perth Group entitled "HIV - a virus like no other". This 83-page article provides a comprehensive review of the many serious flaws in the alleged scientific evidence for the existence of a single retrovirus particle HIV as the causative agent for the ever expanding umbrella of diseses under the acronym AIDS. Indeed, the conclusion reads as follows:
On the basis of the presently available data in the scientific literature, one has no choice but to conclude that whatever “HIV” is, it is not “the virus that causes AIDS”, or even “a real virus”.
At the moment, this analysis stands uncontested as most scientific journals do not even dare to send the paper for review as indicated by the following explanatory note:
On 21st February 2017 the Perth Group emailed this manuscript to Nature, The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Science, Medical Hypotheses, the Journal of the American Medical Associationand the New England Journal of Medicine. The following covering note was addressed to each editor-in-chief.
My colleagues and I have a somewhat unusual request of your editorial office. The attached document is a detailed re-evaluation of the HIV/AIDS theory. For several decades we have closely followed the evolution of this theory and the data upon which it was based. In our view the theory was formulated on evidence and observations that were not always subjected to the expected strict scientific rigour. Consequently its conclusions and predictions need to be thoroughly questioned and the precise nature of "HIV" redefined.
We are aware that the topic is contentious, especially as some well-publicised challenges to the orthodox view have had deleterious public health implications. Our request to you as guardians of scientific thought and integrity is to assess our critique, and see whether in your considered opinion it is worthy of being brought to the attention of the scientific community. If you decide that it is, we would then like to prepare, under your guidance, a concise version for publication.
Despite repeated requests, three editors did not acknowledge receipt of our email. All responses came from editorial committees. One was “we do not encourage pre-submission enquiries”; another, we “respectfully pass on having the opportunity to publish a paper on this topic at this time. Best of luck publishing your work in another good journal”. A third, “After considering its focus, content, and interest, we made the editorial decision not to consider your proposal further. We are informing you of this decision promptly so that you can submit your manuscript elsewhere”. All replies ignored our request for a private appraisal and/or responded as if the manuscript were a submission for publication (a futile exercise given that no editor would accept a paper of this length).