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.
Slyver --
2 of 2:
Because that's what virologists do. Maybe YOU don't, but virologists DO.
Have you read the Enders paper from 1954? That's where it all started.
YOU are not a virologist, working with "viruses," so your experience is irrelevent to this discussion.
YOU are not a virologist and YOU do not work with viruses.
That is what you stated, right?
YOU are the one who brought up the photos that are derived from electron microscopy. So, what do you DO with those photos is you don't LOOK at them?
How do you KNOW you are "seeing virons" in those photos if you don't LOOK at them?
That's because you choose to ignore my point.
Oh ... OK ... NOW I get it.
Joke is on me, I guess. You have been trolling me this whole time. Nothing you posted is serious, but at least others who read this can get an idea of the problem with virology.
If you are NOT trolling, then what the FUCK is your problem, dude? Can you not READ?
There were TWO experiments, one WITH a bodily fluid and one WITHOUT. The TWO experiements ended in the SAME result, which was a "virus" found in the electron microscope photos that you apparently do not look at.
This method was sued to prove that the ONLY method that ALL virologist use results in something that "looks like a virus" but is actually caused by something that is not a virus.
But YOU are not a virologist.
And YOU do not look at photos, so OK.
BINGO. You have NOT researched this issue from the side that opposes your viewpoint.
Instead, you have DISMISSED IT OUT OF HAND, WITH NO CRITIAL THINKING AT ALL.
That is an ASSUMPTION you are making because remember ... YOU are NOT a virologist, and YOU do NOT do this kind of work.
But the people do this kind of work ... DO IT THIS WAY, whether you want to believe it or not.
I could go down to any hospital in America and find an entire team of doctors who will blatantly say that no vaccine is harmful to anyone. They will say the Covid vaccine is (a) safe, (b) effective against contagion, and (c) effective against transmission.
They will say this despite the FACT that NONE of these claims have ANY science to back them up. They are ALL false claims.
But THEY belief it. That's because they drank the Kool-Aid and think they are smarter than anyone else who did not go through their system of indctrination.
But it makes no difference what they THINK.
The TRUTH is independent of what they think.
It is also independent of what you or I think. Only the evidence can point us in the right direction.
But to have any chance of heading in the right direction ... we must be willing to LOOK at the evidence.
YOU ... are not willing to look at the EVIDENCE presented by the other side of your arguement.
I once thought what you thought. But unlike you, I DID look at the other side, and I discovered that their evidence is the superior evidence, no matter what people like you -- who REFUSE to look at their evidence -- might think, due to their willful ignorance.
So, Slyver ... I made it about halfway through the 2/2 post of yours, but I must head out for the day.
I will say this:
You (once again) replied to a point of mine by simply posting links to articles or "studies" that you apparently think refute my point. You expect ME to wade through possibly several hours of reading and thinking about what those actually mean, but you are too fucking lazy to just make YOUR point and then use them to back up your point.
So, I checked out the first one, very briefly (because that's all it really takes if you know what you are looking for -- which YOU DO NOT). It is this:
https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/jb.91.4.1645-1651.1966
Go straight to "Materials and Methods" section. It CLEARLY states in there that the reserachers used "viral cultures" (which is an immediate signal that it was not purified virus) and these cultures included OTHER GENETIC MATERIAL, OTHER THAN A "VIRUS" such as: (a) embyonated eggs, (b) mouse embryo, (c) chinese hampster lun cell, (d) calf serum, and a bunch of other shit I would have to look up to find out what sort of drugs they were adding to this mixed soup of chemicals.
What they were NOT doing is looking at an isolated/purified sample of a VIRUS ... because IT DOES NOT EXIST. If it did, then THAT is what they would look at.
You have done this TWICE now in our discussions. I do not believe you even LOOK at these papers. I think you just Google something and link the first few things you find. You didn't read all of these -- and you sure as hell did not understand what they were doing, so you could not understand if their conclusions are in anyway meaningful.
More than HALF of all "scientific studies" are completely worthless, either due to bad science or corruption via funding that produces results before the reserach is done. This is not ME saying this. This is the editors of Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.
So, you want ME to jump through some hoops by reading through all this, when YOU have not done it yourself.
You also did not watch the videos I linked in my OP. This means you just jumped into the discussion, attempting to refute my position, not even understanding what my position is.
IF (and ONLY IF) you watch those videos so that you can clearly state (a) what MY position really is and (b) why YOU think it is wrong, specifically ... THEN I would be interested in continued debate.
I have changed my position (from what you believe to what I now believe), so I am open to new LOGIC and EVIDENCE.
But you have not provided anything but obfuscation and obstinance.
You don't even read (or understand) the citations that YOU provide, and you do not give me the courtesy of understanding what my position is.
So, if you are not willing to meet me halfway, then I am no longer interested in this discussion with you.
Hopefully others who read this will get something out of it.
Have a nice day.