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.
There is so much here to unpack.
What does it mean "to see" something? Does it mean we look with our eyes and "oh look, there's a unicorn"? Do we have to "touch" the unicorn to make it real? Do we have to hear the unicorn make sounds? Do we have to smell the unicorn farts? What makes something "real"?
In the case of a virus, does it mean we see something under a microscope? Are we not assuming there isn't a little gremlin painting a picture for us to look at through the scope? I mean, how do you define "see" in the context of a virus?
We have a literal fuckton of electon microscopy photos of virions. I suggest we have seen millions if not billions of things that look exactly like we expect a virus to look like.
As to what you think we are seeing (cell fragments), see below.
We "capture" a virus using the techniques for capturing pieces of a cell, or group of cells, small pieces of tissue, etc.. This technique is called cell fractionation. We further see what's in our cell fraction using whole genome sequencing (WGS), and/or if we have the antibodies for it, we can also use chromatography to capture proteins, or virions, or anything that expresses specific molecules on the exterior. We see virus's in all sorts of ways.
Is there any speculation in there? Sorta. We use statistics and multiple experiments to be as sure as we can be that what we have is what we think we have.
Is that 100% certain? No, but nothing is 100% certain. The idea that there is any experiment that ever tells anything with 100% certainty completely misunderstands what science is.
Science is the best method we have of being less wrong than we were before. It has nothing to do with telling the Truth. Science can't tell the Truth, because it starts from the basic premise that we don't know what the Truth is. It perpetually remains in that position to ensure we don't miss anything. Because if you believe you know the Truth, you won't look at evidence to the contrary. Science must be willing to look at evidence to the contrary or it is a worthless practice. Just like all other forms of investigation that do the same....
There is no evidence to suggest that virions are exosomes or apoptotic blebs (the "cellular fragments" you are likely assuming virions are). Virions have specifc proteins that are unique to the virus, and can be made from the RNA/DNA the virus contains within its genome, as found by WGS when we fractionate the samples. Exosomes do not contain the same material inside (the same RNA/DNA sequences every time) nor do they have those unique proteins on the outside, nor does the extracellular milieu contain the same amount of exosomes as it does virions (there are in general many more virions than there are exosomes in any random sampling). This is an assumption on my part. I am going on pictures I have seen, I have never done the experiments on viruses myself, but I have seen a lot of pictures.
Does that make me correct? Even if I had done the experiments myself, would that make me correct? No, but I have yet to see any reasonable evidence that it is incorrect either, therefore, it is, for me, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because I have seen no reason to doubt it.
As for apopotic blebs. When a cell undergoes apoptosis, like when it gets really sick from poison, it breaks up into little bubbles (blebs). These blebs are not uniform in size like virions are, nor do they contain unique sequences of RNA/DNA like virions do.
The idea that there is "no such thing as a virus" does not match with documentation or experiment. IF it is all a fraud, it isn't because "the experiments haven't been done correctly". It would have to be a conspiracy of all scientists, not just those at the top, and I know from personal experience that such a conspiracy doesn't exist.
I think the whole "doesn't match with Koch's principles" thing is controlled opposition, designed to make those that don't understand the minutia of cell biology believe something plausible to discredit everything else they say.
Just like Flat Earth is for those who don't understand physics.
See = Vision.
Even virologists will admit they cannot see a virus under a regular microscope. They must use photos from an electron microscope.
What you have is a literal fuckton of electron microscopy photos of ... SOMETHING.
That SOMETHING has no uniformity. That SOMETHING has never been isolated and purified from all other SOMETHINGS. That SOMETHING is CAUSED BY the PROCESS that virologists use when they THINK they are researching a virus.
They extract a bodily fluid from a person with symptoms of sickness -- or in today's bizarro world, from a person with ZERO symptoms of sickness.
They ASSUME the fluid has a "virus" in it.
They MIX that fluid with OTHER MATERIAL ... that has ITS OWN GENETIC MATERIAL (i.e. vero cells, a.k.a monkey kidney cells, among other things).
They then TAKE AWAY nutrients for those cells.
They then ADD antibiotics which are specifically TOXIC to kidney cells.
And when the kidney cells inevitably die, they proclaim ... "Abracadabra! The 'virus' killed those kidney cells ... so there must be a 'virus' in there, somewhere ... muh science PROOFSSS it!"
THAT is the sum total of what "virologists" do when they "study" a "virus" or take "pictures" of a "virus."
It is actually the cells ejecting material when they are poisoned, thereby creating the "corona" look that virologists think is the coronavirus.
If my position is correct, then there should be a way to test this to find out.
That is EXACTLY what virologist Stefan Lanka did in April 2021. He did the regular virology process (bodily fluid from a person with measles, mixed it with monkey kidney cells, toxins, etc.) and got the "virus" look that is seen in the electron microscope.
Then, he did the CONTROL experiment -- which virologist NEVER do. He did the exact SAME process, but this time he DID NOT TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM A SICK PERSON. He put all the other genetic material together, along with the toxins, and HE GOT THE EXACT SAME RESULT.
So, the thing that virologists think they "SEE" (i.e. with their eyesight) ... is CAUSED BY the PROCESS they use, and NOT by anything in the bodily fluids of the sick (or healthy) person.
Case closed, unless you can think another reason why the control would yield the same result.
This is the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from this one, central point.
I have to take off for a few hours, but will be interested in your reply.
I would specifically like to know how a "virus" can appear in an experiment when there was no sample included from any human or animal.
Virologists could not find any viruses, and could not prove contagion of any so-called viral illness for decades. And then John Enders did an experiment where he used this process of mixing genetic material along with toxins, and claiming it proved a virus. He also did a control, and stated that there was no observable difference. Yet, he did not state the obvious: no observable difference because it was the process that caused the destruction of the cells.
That was 1954. Since then, ALL virology experiments used his method, and with NO control to make sure it was not the process itself that was responsible for the result.
Until 2021, when virologist Stefan Lanka did both the regular and control experiment, and discovered that the "virus" appeared in both -- meaning, it could not have been the virus at all.
That is a false statement. While it is true that this is done for many genetic phenomenon, it is NOT true that it is done for any virus.
The human genome started with a real, live human.
But ... NO viral genome has EVER started with a real, live virus. No such thing exists in any lab anywhere in the world ... that is NOT mixed in with monkey kidney cells or other things ... WHICH HAVE THEIR OWN GENETIC MATERIAL MIXED INTO THE SOUP.
Yes, there is. Stefan Lanka showed that if you do TWO experiments to "find a virus," and one of them DOES contain genetic material that is suspected to have a virus in it, and the other does not have ANY genetic material from a human or animal that might have a virus ... you get the same "virons."
"Virons" is a misnomer. It is not true. These are not parts of a virus. There is NO PROOF that they are.
It is nothing more than an ASSUMPTION -- an assumption that these particles are "virons" when in reality they are fragments of the genetic material that was MIXED into this soup, and were created when the toxins did what toxins do.
There IS proof that these things seen in an electron microscope photograph are exosomes or otherwise cellular debris. It happens WITH or WITHOUT any human or animal material. So, it obviously could NOT be a virus you are looking at.
The "viral genome" was NOT identifed by starting with a virus. It was created by starting with a MIXTURE OF GENETIC MATERIAL, that was ASSUMED TO HAVE A VIRUS WITHIN IT ... and then primers were put into a computer program ... and the COMPUTER ASSEMBLED a "GENOMIC SEQUENCE" ... because that is what the computer was programed to do. The computer could not have NOT done that.
Give it the primers for measles "virus" and it will create a "genome" for that. Do the same for HIV or any other "virus" and the computer will create it. Not because they STARTED WITH a real, physical virus (which does not exist, isolated and purifed from all other genetic material), but rather with a MIXTURE of genetic material that was ASSUMED to also include a virus.
Computers are great for calculating things from imaginary concepts, as long as the programmer tells it what to do.
Stefan Lanka not only showed that the "virus" image is created by the process the virologist uses, but also showed that the "genome" was created in a computer, also WITHOUT starting with any material from any human. Got the exact same genetic sequence. No virus, because no human or animal fluid to start the process with. Just the mixture of other genetic materials and the toxins.
Same result.
Explain that.
2/2
The largest flaw in your reasoning is that this is true. There is no “central point” or if there is, it hasn’t been caught within your discourse.
How can you say both:
and
???
I can’t understand how you are extracting this conclusion from anything. It’s like it was pulled out of the aether.
I don’t care about John Enders. I haven’t looked at his experiment. I don’t give a crap about it. I am talking about the methods used today; the protocols and experiments performed today. The idea that nothing has changed…
It’s ludicrous beyond belief.
And now we have found the main flaw in your argument. This is completely untrue. Where you got this idea, I have no idea, but whoever told you this was lying.
Really?
Are you sure?
Are you 100% positive about that?
Like, absolutely 100%?
Because the documentation says something quite different.
Relying on the word and “experiments” of one person is not a good way to determine Truth. On the contrary, this is exactly how The Matrix is created. Just because someone says something that matches your biases or desires doesn’t make it true. Just because they have letters after their name doesn’t make them right.
Having said that, I have not read the work of Mr. Lanka. I will read his refutation of virus’s later when I have the time.
“Proof” is the misnomer. Proof is a decision, for an individual, that the evidence meets some standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.). There can be no “proof” of anything because "proof" is a verb, not a noun (in actuality, even if not in the dictionary). There is however substantial evidence. What there is not, is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof (the decision) for you.
One experiment, using one protocol, is not really “evidence” of anything except that that one protocol produced some result. And that’s if the experiment was conducted sufficiently. People, even experienced experimentalists, make mistakes all the time. They come to incorrect conclusions even more often. Science is messy as fuck. People make assumptions they shouldn’t be making, they ignore variables all the time, they make decisions on what data to include, and what not to include. They take a thousand pictures and only show the one that is most “representative.” The amount of bias in science is total. It’s in every step.
That doesn’t make science useless, not at all. It means that the debate IS the science. Without the debate, any one experiment, or a thousand experiments, are useless masturbation. In total, with the evidence I have seen thus far, I am still in the "Beyond a reasonable doubt" category that virus’s exist. Until I see any evidence to support a doubt born of reason, and not desire, I will remain in that category. I will look and see what Mr. Lanka’s claims are, and what evidence he has to support them.
The “viral genome” was found by starting with a cell fraction, and doing whole genome sequencing.
This is a gross mischaracterization for the reasons I have already stated (cell fractionation, extracellular sampling, or other partial isolation techniques).
I don’t really understand what you are saying here. Have you looked at how WGS works? You get a sample, you get a bunch of pieces of DNA/RNA, the computer puts them together like a puzzle. The output is a statistical measure of accuracy. You do the same test a bunch of times to make that statistical measure more accurate. It’s a perfectly sound method.
If you are suggesting we can “create” any virus we want from normal human genetic material, and that that is what we do…
Wow.
Do you think we are all idiots?
We have been programmed to not see that we are in The Matrxi and to believe in dogma. That doesn't make us stupid.
WGS is a perfectly sound method of finding sequences, at least when performed on multiple samples. Perhaps Mr. Lanka doesn’t properly understand the process, or thinks that people are always doing the same thing he did. As I said, different labs have different protocols
Assuming you agree that a "virus" is some discreet unit/object that exists in the real world, you'll find that the current "proofs" for its existence is masked through multiple layers of obfuscation.
Just like how we don't actually own our shares and how the financial markets is a scam obscured through layers of obfuscation.
That Stefan Lanka paper should lead you in the right direction. All current "proofs" for "viruses" as popularly understood are merely arguments, the same as telling you there's a cat in the box. It's only when you decide to actually see the cat yourself do you realize the box is actually empty.