By Richard Jannaccio on Thursday, June 12, 2014 at 1:43am
The specific evidence that has proven the existence of other viruses --purification, culture and electron microscope examination of the purified fraction-- does not exist for HIV.
Detecting an enzyme reaction that occurs with or without the presence of virus is insufficient and not conclusive evidence that a virus is present, and yet the reaction of the enzyme reverse transcriptase was the basis for declaring the discovery and existence of HIV.
Also, co-culturing with other cells, although necessary to culture any virus, also further muddies the waters. Attempts to purify and examine the purified fraction of cultures assumed to contain HIV under the electron microscope revealed no retrovirus to be found! If this has not been accomplished in more than 30 years, isn't it time to stop pretending that the virus exists?
However, whether or not Luc Montagnier found a new virus or not and just cannot prove it, is a moot point anyway, at least for the general public, if the alleged "virus" cannot be shown to cause any disease.
Incredibly, this "virus," whether it exists or not, has been named "Human Immunodeficiency Virus," as if it is a real virus and really functions as its name says, causing immune system damage.
But there is also no evidence that any virus causes human immunodeficiency.
Therefore, although the evidence does not support even the existence of a virus, for people who agree that there is no disease-causing virus to debate whether this harmless virus exists or not is a waste of time.
The conclusions that HIV has not been proven to exist and that no virus has been proven to cause what is called "AIDS" is based on analyzing the scientific evidence that exists and noting unsupported conclusions.
Q: DOES HIV EXIST?
The Emperor's New Virus?
A: NO!.....................Part 1 of 2
A: NO!.....................Part 2 of 2
The Emperor's New Virus? with Spanish subtitle
IN DEPTH yet EASY to UNDERSTAND:
Christine Johnson interviews Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos (Perth, Australia)
More from the Perth Group:
http://www.theperthgroup.com/OTHER/EM-HIVinPlasma-June2013.pdfhttp://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/MHMONT.pdf
Virologist Peter Duesberg of the University of California-Berkeley says HIV is a harmless retrovirus. The Perth group in Australia and a few European scientists say the virus has not even been proven to exist; what was claimed to be a virus is some debris from broken cells. That's all that was found when attempts were made to purify "HIV" using the accepted method employing a sucrose gradient. Of course if HIV doesn't even exist, then it can't cause any illness either. I often agree with Duesberg, but on this issue I'm with the Perth Group. Their position is that after more than 30 years, the existence of HIV has not been proven. The evidence for the existence of HIV is insufficient and inconclusive.
The view that is presented in "The Emperor's New Virus?" is that of the Perth Group. There's some redundancy in the film but the case is compelling.
Moreover, in addition to its existence remaining unproven, the claimed function of the hypothetical virus is also unproven. The published scientific research literature contains no proof that any virus causes the criteria that are diagnosed as "AIDS."
There is a spectrum of thought on this. As previously stated, there is disagreement even within the dissident movement on whether the virus exists, but we all agree that it does not cause AIDS.
It is not difficult to explain why such disagreement exists. Imagine a group of people on a jury. One is convinced by an eyewitness alone. Another will not be convinced unless the murder weapon can be produced. Another requires both an eyewitness and fingerprints, or DNA. So, too, Duesberg and others are satisfied with some suggestive evidence. The Perth Group requires purification and an electron microscope image of the purified virus--which has not been done. Therefore, the Perth Group's criteria have not been met, so they maintain that the existence of HIV has not been proven.
This is about whether HIV exists. In another chapter, we address whether it causes disease. Some believe only HIV has not been proven to cause disease. Duesberg believes no retrovirus causes infectious disease, but he seems to accept that other types of viruses can cause disease. There is controversy about whether polio and other diseases, are caused by a virus, but less controversy about chicken pox, for example. The evidence is not the same for each disease that has been associated with a virus, and people who do not accept one or more of the mainstream conclusions seem to have set the bar at different levels, as to what constitutes sufficient proof.
To summarize:
The existence of HIV has not been proven. What is being called HIV is largely if not exclusively cellular debris.
Reason: The discovery of the "virus" was claimed based on reverse transcriptase (enzyme) activity in fluid collected from cultured cells believed to be infected. An electron micrograph of biological material precipitated from this fluid (supernatant) shows virus-like particles that may or may not be virus.
However, after going through a purification procedure, using a sucrose gradient for separation, the band that is supposed to be the virus, when examined under the electron microscope, shows zero virus particles, only cellular "junk" from broken cells.
It's very well demonstrated in the video. Please watch it. This is important information and has ramifications that will become even more important later. For example, this cellular "junk"--not any real virus-- is the very same "stuff" that is used to produce the HIV antibody tests, both the ELISA and the Western blot, using proteins assumed but not proven to be from HIV and further falsely assumed to be unique to HIV, and that assumption is known to be false. So if you test HIV+, it means your antibodies are reacting with junk from cultured cells. And what is the significance of that? God only knows.
There is no reason to believe that testing "positive" is a bad thing. It could be bad, good, or of no consequence. Until somebody finds out, there is no justification for worrying about it. This whole fraud was invented to enhance a few careers and create a multi-billion-dollar industry.
Why would anyone agree to be tested if they knew that the significance given to the test results were fabricated to generate business and had no known demonstrated value in evaluating your health?
If you grab something off the street and name it "Santa Claus" then technically you can insist that Santa Claus exists, because there's the object and you decided to call it Santa Claus. But it's not going to start growing a while beard and give out toys just because you named it Santa Claus. In other words, it's not going to fulfill the expectation of Santa Claus.
By the same token, if I isolate some cellular junk and name it Human Immunodeficiency Virus, it does not turn into a real virus and also know that now it must live up to its name and start causing deficiency in people's immune systems.
In other words, "HIV" is really "so-called HIV." Other viruses have been shown to exist, using the same sucrose gradient and electron microscope techniques, but these techniques FAIL to show the existence of HIV. Why? Perhaps because HIV does not exist. If you study the history of how "HIV" came to be, the fraud is pretty obvious.
The main objective of this thread and of the movie is to show that the existence of HIV remains unproven after more than 30 years.
"Does HIV exist?"
So-called HIV has never been proven to exist, after more than 30 years of research. It has never been purified. When cultures thought to contain HIV were subjected to purification by sucrose gradient, subsequent electron microscopic examination of the band that was expected to contain the purified virus showed no virus.
I say "so-called" because a virus should not be named "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" ("HIV") unless it has been proven 1) to be a virus, that 2) causes immunodeficiency in humans.
July 17 at 9:14am
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.