We are now seeing the criminal globalists attempting to pivot from "Covid will kill everybody" to "Covid will cause HIV, which will cause AIDS, which will kill everybody -- but it's definitly not the vaccines that caused any of this harm, so take your vaxx."
So, I wanted to create a thread of a post I wrote in another thread. This way, I can reference this thread in the future, and others here can debate this subject.
My initial research into HIV/AIDS led me to conclude that HIV was real, but it did not cause AIDS, because AIDS is nothing more than a made-up definition, and not a real physical syndrome.
Later, I discovered that people were saying HIV also is not real (does not exist).
Now, I have concluded that all viruses are made-up fantasies, because virologists ALL use a method to "study a virus" that is not valid.
We know that PCR is a technique, and is not something that can diagnose any illness. Likewise, nobody has ever actually seen a virus, captured a virus to study, or studied a virus. What they are looking at are cellular fragments of poisoned cells in a lab (not in a person), and everything else from there is pure speculation, not scientific at all.
Regarding HIV/AIDS, it is helpful to understand the history of how things have progressed over the past 50 years.
AIDS - Originally to Explain Gay Illnesses
AIDS does not exist as a real thing in the real world. Instead, it is just a definition, which is used to create fear in the public and money into the bank accounts of the fraud promoters.
In the 1970's, gay men in San Francisco were getting weird illnesses, some of them died. Michael Gottlieb (a Fauci co-conspirator) came up with the term GRID ("Gay-Related Immune Deficiency") as an explanation. There was NO scientific research to base this on. It was just a guess.
They tried to get grant money to "study" this thing (that did not really exist), but they came up empty because nobody wanted to spend money to help out the fags in San Fran.
So, they changed the name to AIDS ("Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome"). They claimed that anyone could get it (not just homosexuals). AGAIN, they had absolutely NO scientific evidence for this. It was just a made-up claim.
"HIV Causes AIDS" -- a Claim With No Science Behind It
Robert Gallo invented the "smoking gun." This is what changed everything. He claimed that he discovered that HIV was a virus that caused AIDS. The media went crazy with it, and the public panicked. Now, everybody could get a deadly illness just by having sex.
The money poured in, and Anthony Fauci was the ringleader for this scam.
At this point, they started doing HIV tests. And those tests were bogus. They could NOT diagnose anything. Kary Mullis spoke out against using the PCR technique as a diagnostic tool for HIV. But they continued doing it.
AIDS is nothing more than a definition. IF (a) you have one of 30+ illnesses listed by the CDC, AND (b) you test positive for HIV (with a bogus test), THEN you are diagnosed with AIDS.
If you have the illness but test negative, then you "just" have the illness, but not AIDS.
There is NO scientific research to prove this. NONE.
Robert Gallo would later state on the record that he NEVER had any proof. It was ONLY an hypothesis.
But the money rolled in.
So, what is the TRUTH?
The Truth About HIV/AIDS
The truth is those homos in San Francisco were part of the new "free love" movement that was sweeping the country in the 1960's/1970's. They were the gay subculture of it.
They created bath houses to have casual sex in. But their kind of sex is unnatural, so they used drugs to relax the anal muscles. They used Amyl Nitrate ("poppers") which turned out to be highly toxic to humans.
Plus, they were using recreational drugs to party for days at a time without going to sleep.
This "gay lifestyle" is what caused their bodies to build up with toxins, and they developed all sorts of nasty illnesses. Some of them died.
The Drugs Killed the AIDS Patients
Once the false "HIV causes AIDS" story became the narrative, they would test people for HIV. If they were positive (using a bogus test), and if they also had one of those 30+ illnesses listed by CDC, then they were diagnosed as having "AIDS."
They were then put onto "AIDS drugs" like AZT, which was a failed chemo drug. AZT is EXTREMELY toxic.
Cancer patients are given toxic drugs for a LIMITED time period to kill off cancer cells. But AIDS patients were put on these drugs FOREVER. These drugs killed them.
That's why they eventually stopped using these highly toxic drugs. It was too obvious what was really going on.
And once this was all figured out, AIDS just "went away."
There was a time when people were in fear of having sex. Now, nobody really even thinks about AIDS.
Until now ... because they have recently attempted to bring back the fear porn for HIV.
Just like Fauci led the fake scam of HIV/AIDS (and controlled the $$$$$), he has been leading the fake scam of SARS/Covid. Now that they have maxed out what they can to get everyone taking the fake Covid vaccines, they are pivoting to HIV, to scare more people into taking what will be the fake HIV vaccines.
They are pivoting to "Covid causes HIV, which causes AIDS, which causes serious illnesses -- because it's definitly not the fake vaccines that caused all those sudden illnesses, that did not exist before the fake vaccines were unleashed."
Get it?
Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR, explaining how he realized that there is no science behind the "HIV causes AIDS" scam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnFAvKJe9VE
"House of Numbers" is the best documentary I have ever seen about the history of HIV/AIDS, and why the "scientists" cannot answer very basic questions. It was done more than 10 years ago, before Covid, and you will see a lot of the Covid players in it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/k7168G95ecNT/
The 2021 research that proves that NO viruses exist:
https://rumble.com/vtd2cf-cov-myths-exposed-scientists-prove-sars-cov-2-cov-dont-exist.html
What [They] are Planning Next
They have recently changed the PCR "diagnostic" they are using. They have not done away with PCR; they are just changing the inputs. It is still not a diagnostic tool, but is being used as a diagnostic tool.
The plan is to make the claim that you just take one "test" and you get multiple results. You can be "diagnosed positive" for Covid, HIV, Herpes, and anything else they want to dream up. But no matter what, you WILL be postiive for something, even though you have no signs of sickness at all. Unless, of course, you are a good little lemming/slave and do not rock the boat.
This is to get the mRNA vaxx into your body. Injecting everyone at ALL COST is the goal.
Why?
There are no good reasons why, only bad reasons.
1/2
I think you missed my point on this, or at least you didn’t address it. My point was, you don’t have to see something (capture reflected light) for something to be detected, in fact, almost all science done on the very small has little to do with photons directly. We use other methods of detection, and we use statistics and multiple experiments to understand what we are “seeing” (in a not reflected light sort of way).
People in the macroscopic world rely on vision, because that is the most common sense we use to interface with the world. It is not the only way to determine if something is “real”, in fact, it leads to conclusions that are provably not real more often that not.
Says who? Electon microscopy of virions shows remarkable uniformity. That makes sense because the proteins that make up the structure of the viral coat have specific geometry that makes a uniform exterior surface. See here. Or here. Or here. Or here.
Tell me those don’t look uniform. On the contrary, their size and morphology are remarkably uniform. There are a million more pictures just like those. All you have to do is look.
What does that mean to you? I don’t think you fully appreciate how difficult such a task would be. Not to say it can't be done, but the effort v. reward is unbalanced.
We use many experiments and statistics to determine these things. You seem to want to hold a single virion in your hand. Why? You are again relying on “seeing”. We don’t do science on the very small by this method. We use statistics and many experiments. Until you really go through the methods we do use, you can’t say they are insufficient. You assume they are insufficient because you rely on sight, and holding a single thing in your hand.
If I fractionate a sample, and isolate the fraction that contains the “things” that escaped the cell, and then do a whole genome sequence on them, and find a sequence that is not contained within the cells genome, have I not found something unique? Something that isn’t supposed to be there? Have I not isolated it? I took the fraction that had what I assume are virions. Those fractions don’t contain parts of mitochondria, or the nucleus, because those things are in different fractions. We know that, because we do those experiments all the time. So here I have a fraction that doesn’t contain that stuff, but it does have the virions (what you call cell fragments) and they have a unique genome, which I just found. How is that not an isolation? I’m not saying there’s no contamination from mitochondria or nuclei, but the same contaminants are not found in each such experiment, and they are far less than would be found in the fraction that contained just the mitochondria, or just the nuclei (both of which can also be isolated from each other by the same method). So when we do 20 experiments, and we find different small amounts of contaminants in each one, we can subtract out those contaminants, and what remains is the unique sequence. That’s not “seeing” but its multiple experiments to determine what is there.
This is a mischaracterization of the process. First, it’s not “monkey kidney cells.” I am sure there are experiments that use such cell lines, in my lab I worked with several human cell lines (I did not do virus research). To suggest “monkey kidney cells” as if that were some standard thing is inappropriate. It’s whatever they use. It could be one of many different cell lines, or even multiple different ones to see if there is a difference.
You say a lot of things in the “process” they use, that is not the actual process they use. I’m not sure where you are getting these ideas. Did you look up one specific experiment and then think that they all follow the same exact protocol? Almost all labs design their own protocols. While there are similarities, there are substantial differences. They use different cell lines, different processes of extraction, etc. I have no idea why you think they add “antibiotics that are specifically toxic to the kidney cells.” That is simply not true. We do use antibiotics in our cell culture medium, but they are not toxic. In fact cells thrive in the medium. I personally have used such a medium thousands of times. It never kills the cells. It never produces products like the virions seen in the picture samples above. Never. This idea is a mischaracterization of what actually happens.
I assert it is not the sum total of anything. It is actually a gross oversimplification that doesn’t understand the larger picture at all.
This is an assumption that doesn’t understand what is occuring.
Why would you assume this? As far as I can remember, every paper I have read on this topic includes control studies.
This is not a proper control, because it only says that the process he used was toxic. It says nothing about the protocols that other people have used, which is many. I assert again this may be controlled opposition.
… It’s not their eyesight, its multiple experiments and statistics. We DON’T use eyesight, that was my point.
Your conclusion assumes that the one “experiment” captured all the other experiments in a nutshell. I assert that is impossible, and that this experiment, even if it is exactly as you suggest, was inherently flawed, because it didn’t account for the MASSIVE variables in experimental protocols.