Any extracts used in the following article are for non-commercial research and educational purposes only and may be subject to copyright from their respective owners.
The pursuit of HIV vaccines was a con game from the start. Before I proceed, let me be clear. My decade-plus examination of HIV and AIDS in dozens of federal court cases proved that:
1. HIV IS REAL: I bought, examined, and photographed copies of Montagnierâs original LAV.
2. AIDS IS REAL: The immune systems of all living organisms are eventually compromised by entropy, age, and various toxins, environments, and behaviors.
3. No one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
So-called HIV âco-discovererâ Robert Gallo never proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS. SCIENCE published his four papers without peer review. They were never peer reviewed.
Hundreds of other "researchers" have since uncritically referenced his unproven hypothesis.
Galloâs âco-discovererâ, Luc Montagnier, admitted that HIV can be cured within weeks with clean water and good nutrition WITHOUT the need for drugs or vaccines. https://youtu.be/PyPq-waF-h4?t=1040
According to Peter Duesberg (who mapped the genome of the retrovirus), all retroviruses are non-pathogenic. Thus, HIV is a) non-pathogenic, b) doesnât naturally exist in the human body, and c) no one ever proved otherwise. https://omsj.org/reports/Duesberg1988.pdf
Real scientists would establish a cause for a disease before developing interventions to fight fake diseases. Arguing cures for fake diseases generates billions, but taxpayer shakedowns have nothing to do with infectious disease mortality that became statistically irrelevant by 1955. https://www.omsj.org/reports/Armstrong%201999.pdf
Have you read Dr Leonard Horowitz's 1996 book _Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola_, which explores the history and lab-creation of the HIV bioweapon? If not, you can read it here:
According to the 1988 Strecker Memorandum, "[t]he United States Defence Department requested and got $10 million to make the AIDS virus in labs as a political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against Blacks. The feasibility program and labs were to have been completed by 1974-1975; the virus between 1974-1979. The World Health Organization started to inject AIDS-laced smallpox vaccine into over 100 million Africans (population reduction) in 1977. And over 2000 young white male homosexuals (Trojan horse) in 1978 with the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control/New York Blood Center."
So how exactly does the WHO inject an ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY S Y N D R O M E into a vaccine? If one seeks to compromise an immune system, would it not be simpler to add heavy metals or other toxins (like other vaccines) to start the iatrogenic constellations?
HIV is not a "syndrome," but rather a lab-created immune-system ravaging virus (just as SARS-CoV-2 is). Many people are exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon, but not all come down with Covid.
That's a good story, but until your alleged "lab-created immune-system ravaging virus" meets Koch's Postulates, stories like this are scientifically meaningless. I don't read tarot cards or astrology charts for the same reason.
But IF I am wrong and you can find it, please copy/paste/link the relevant chapter that meets Koch's postulates. It's not complicated. Anyone familiar with agar and mushroom propagation can likely grasp a proof.
Koch's four postulates are:
1. The bug MUST BE FOUND in organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The bug MUST BE ISOLATED from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured bug SHOULD CAUSE DISEASE when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The bug MUST BE RE-ISOLATED from the inoculated, diseased experimental host AND identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
(I'll focus on HIV because once that con game is understood you'll recognize variations of the same game, viruses, diseases, vaccines, treatments, etc.)
Whether the widget you/we/they call HIV evolved naturally or was "lab-created", there's no replicable proof that their alleged "immune-system ravaging virus" ravages anything. If it did, my team would've spotted it in the many blood samples drawn, spun, and examined under electron microscopy from our oddly unravaged HIV+ clients. At ~80nm, it's easily spotted when spun and isolated. If that bug "ravages" anything, we'd have seen it and reported our evidence as Gallo and Montagnier should have reported and published it decades ago.
People die for many reasons, but there is no credible proof that HIV has ever sickened or killed anyone or anything. I'm not saying that people don't perish from deadly and unnecessary medical interventions (the third leading cause of death in the US [Starfield 2000]) or that reckless practitioners haven't signed death certificates; but having physically examined 100+ alleged HIV+ clients, it's curious that none have been "ravaged" by the alleged bug that allegedly causes an "ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME".
â(T)he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only ONE INVESTIGATOR who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus⌠There is no such thing as consensus science. If itâs consensus, it isnât science. If itâs science, it isnât consensus. Period.â -
and so many purifications of the sars-cov2 virus as they needed many copies to create antiviral molecules for further study which you can buy from 100's of websites - 1 example:(https://thenativeantigencompany.com/products/sars-cov-2-purified-viral-lysate/) and this is just from a few organisations, theres 100's across the world running their own studies, experiments and tests. Someone even went out of their way to demonstrate that Koch's postulates can be met, eventhough its a 130 years out of date practise (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32215622/)."
Why is it out of date? Here's why:
"Letâs start with that German microbiologist. Robert Koch was born in 1843 and by all accounts was a very clever chap. He trained as a doctor before becoming one of the founders of microbiology as a field of experimental science. Before his death in 1910 he made lots of important contributions. In the 1870s he discovered that anthrax was caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis, the first time a specific microbe was linked to a specific disease. He followed that up in 1882 with his discovery that the slow-growing bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis was the cause of tuberculosis (TB). Better known back then as consumption, TB had long been thought to be a hereditary disease.
Kochâs postulates, aka how to tell whether a microbe causes disease
Robert Koch is also famous for his âpostulatesâ, the four conditions he and his mentor Jakob Henle postulated had to be met for a microbe to be considered the cause of a disease. It is these postulates that have now been discovered by the internet and (badly) applied to Covid-19. This is how Kochâs postulates were first laid out more than 130 years ago:
The organism must always be present, in every case of the disease.
The organism must be isolated from a host containing the disease and grown in pure culture.
Samples of the organism taken from pure culture must cause the same disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible animal in the laboratory.
The organism must be isolated from the inoculated animal and must be identified as the same original organism first isolated from the originally diseased host.
So, in the light of the 21st century how do the postulates hold up? Well, the first one was soon abandoned by Koch himself with the discovery that people could be asymptomatic carriers of the microbes responsible for cholera and typhoid fever. In the years since, weâve come to understand that many microbes can live in and on people and only cause disease under certain circumstances. Weâve also come to understand that some microbes can set off a chain reaction that leads to disease long after the organism in question has been cleared by the immune system.
The second postulate should really read something like: it would be nice if the organism could be isolated and grown in pure culture. Thatâs because we donât even know the conditions under which many microbes grow outside of their host. Take Mycobacterium leprae which causes leprosy. As far as we know, that can only grow in humans, nine-banded armadillos, and a mouseâs footpad. Just because we canât grow it in pure culture doesnât mean it isnât responsible for leprosy. Indeed, using genomic sequencing, we know there are way more microbes than weâve ever been able to grow in pure culture.
Obviously postulates three and four suffer from the same issue if the microbe canât be grown in culture. Postulate three would also be better phrased as should cause the same disease when inoculated into a susceptible animal in the laboratory. I say should and specify susceptible because we also now know that some microbes canât cause disease in a healthy host but can if the host is immune-compromised.
But wait! What about viruses?
The worst thing about Kochâs postulates is that they were formulated before viruses were known to exist. Viruses arenât like the bacteria that Koch was busy discovering. Viruses need to take over a host cell to replicate. In other words, they turn cells into virus-producing factories. And depending on what proteins a virus has on its surface, it may only be able to infect very specific cells from certain host species, or a wide range of cells from lots of different species.
Thatâs why when virologists want to isolate a virus from a sample theyâll take the sample or some part of it and add it to some cells â usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab â and then look to see if the cells die and/or if there are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.
In other words, viruses canât be grown in pure culture as described by Kochâs postulates because they need a cell to grow in. Does that mean viruses donât cause disease? No.
Bringing Kochâs Postulates into the 20th century
Over 30 years ago, one of the modern-day leaders of microbiology Professor Stanley Falkow reworded Kochâs Postulates to bring them more up to date. Falkow, who died in 2018, was at the forefront of research into how specific genes possessed by particular microbes contribute to their ability to cause disease. In a nutshell his âMolecular Postulatesâ state that:
The trait under investigation should be associated with pathogenic members of a genus or pathogenic strains of a species. Pathogenic means having the ability to cause disease.
Specific inactivation of the gene(s) associated with the suspected trait should lead to a measurable loss in pathogenicity or virulence in a suitable animal host. In other words, inactivating the gene or genes should mean there is less disease.
Reactivating the gene or genes should restore the ability of the microbe to cause disease in a suitable animal host.
Even with these updated postulates, itâs still not currently possible to satisfy them for many microbes that cause human disease as they rely on the ability to be able to grow and genetically manipulate the microbe in question and have a suitable animal model. That doesnât mean the postulates arenât useful, just that microbiologists might not completely rule out an organism or gene being involved in causing disease even if the postulates canât be fulfilled."
You're well versed, but I prefer not to argue theology. I haven't memorized the pseudoscientific gibberish, but past and recent experience reminds us that when one cannot explain claims to 14-year-olds, it means that the theologian either does not understand it or is trying to confuse his audience for one's own self-interest or gain.
I'll agree that, like LAV/HIV, what we call SARS-CoV-2 may have been isolated and sequenced. Unfortunately, I haven't found REPLICABLE PROOF that the cultured bug causes serious disease when introduced into healthy organisms; nor has that bug been RE-ISOLATED from the inoculated, diseased experimental host NOR identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. Nor does any of this really matter:
We know that most Covid "cases" were identified with meaningless PCR tests and that most Covid deaths were caused by iatrogenic CDC protocols (test-isolation-Remdesivir-intubation) that replaced proven interventions (steroids, rest, Ivermectin, etc.). The CDC protocols were designed to cripple and kill patients to drive the hysteria, lockdowns, and $4 trillion wealth redistribution from the middle class to our Ruling Class.
If SARS-CoV-2 represented the existential threat to humanity that the CDC/NIH/CIA and pharma-funded Fake News alleged, they wouldn't have had to lie and promote deadly interventions to kill the people they ostensibly wanted to save - nor would our feral gov't have paid doctors and hospitals to sicken and kill their patients.
So let's not descend into these pointless pseudoscientific rabbit holes - Here's the bottom line:
Before 1900, infectious disease (ID) mortality was the leading cause of death at >800/100K. By 1955, ID became statistically insignificant at <50/100K - decades before today's 75+ toxic child vaccines were invented.
Because Infectious disease mortality from measles, pertussis, diphtheria, polio, TB, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, covid, the flu (etc.) became statistically insignificant by 1955 - DECADES before 95% of today's vaccines became available - it's clear (as China and other countries prove today) that no countermeasures come close to the effectiveness as our natural immunity as designed by our Creator. Pseudoscientific research and vaccines are made for profits, not healthcare. Infectious disease mortality wasn't successfully fought by virologists nor epidemiologists - that war was won by plumbers.
Agreed. There is Hep vax. There is HIV. There is gp120 and associated pathologies. There is something called AIDS and then there is something called AZT, but they aren't all the same thing as you know from investigating it in great detail!
Wow! This gives new meaning to the Pradhan paper that found go120 in spike protein, and repeated mRNA injections. A friend of mine got Behçetâs disease eruption after shots. That may explain it?
Thank you, Doorless Carp! As usual, dumbo me is really trying to understand your brilliant science!!
And, I am so pleased to have this opportunity to repeat one of my favorite mejbcart lines:
"Two completely different origins of HIV and SARS-CoV-2 canât end up with so many essential identities, unless the bats landed once in San Francisco and ended up with AIDS, if one believes in the âofficial narrativeâ! HIV is OLD, SARS-CoV-2 is NEW."Â
Many thanks to luminous volunteers, Doorless Carp and mejbcart.
Great synopsis! Congrats!
Not unreasonable to assume that the HIV nonsense was just a trial run for the current injection evil.
The pursuit of HIV vaccines was a con game from the start. Before I proceed, let me be clear. My decade-plus examination of HIV and AIDS in dozens of federal court cases proved that:
1. HIV IS REAL: I bought, examined, and photographed copies of Montagnierâs original LAV.
2. AIDS IS REAL: The immune systems of all living organisms are eventually compromised by entropy, age, and various toxins, environments, and behaviors.
3. No one has ever proven that HIV causes AIDS.
So-called HIV âco-discovererâ Robert Gallo never proved that HIV attacks cells or causes AIDS. SCIENCE published his four papers without peer review. They were never peer reviewed.
* https://omsj.org/reports/Gallo1984a.pdf
* https://omsj.org/reports/Gallo1984b.pdf
* https://omsj.org/reports/Gallo1984c.pdf
* https://omsj.org/reports/Gallo1984d.pdf
Hundreds of other "researchers" have since uncritically referenced his unproven hypothesis.
Galloâs âco-discovererâ, Luc Montagnier, admitted that HIV can be cured within weeks with clean water and good nutrition WITHOUT the need for drugs or vaccines. https://youtu.be/PyPq-waF-h4?t=1040
According to Peter Duesberg (who mapped the genome of the retrovirus), all retroviruses are non-pathogenic. Thus, HIV is a) non-pathogenic, b) doesnât naturally exist in the human body, and c) no one ever proved otherwise. https://omsj.org/reports/Duesberg1988.pdf
Real scientists would establish a cause for a disease before developing interventions to fight fake diseases. Arguing cures for fake diseases generates billions, but taxpayer shakedowns have nothing to do with infectious disease mortality that became statistically irrelevant by 1955. https://www.omsj.org/reports/Armstrong%201999.pdf
Respectfully...
Have you read Dr Leonard Horowitz's 1996 book _Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola_, which explores the history and lab-creation of the HIV bioweapon? If not, you can read it here:
https://archive.org/details/emergingvirusesa00horo
According to the 1988 Strecker Memorandum, "[t]he United States Defence Department requested and got $10 million to make the AIDS virus in labs as a political/ethnic weapon to be used mainly against Blacks. The feasibility program and labs were to have been completed by 1974-1975; the virus between 1974-1979. The World Health Organization started to inject AIDS-laced smallpox vaccine into over 100 million Africans (population reduction) in 1977. And over 2000 young white male homosexuals (Trojan horse) in 1978 with the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control/New York Blood Center."
That's a good story.
So how exactly does the WHO inject an ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY S Y N D R O M E into a vaccine? If one seeks to compromise an immune system, would it not be simpler to add heavy metals or other toxins (like other vaccines) to start the iatrogenic constellations?
HIV is not a "syndrome," but rather a lab-created immune-system ravaging virus (just as SARS-CoV-2 is). Many people are exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon, but not all come down with Covid.
Read. The. Book.
That's a good story, but until your alleged "lab-created immune-system ravaging virus" meets Koch's Postulates, stories like this are scientifically meaningless. I don't read tarot cards or astrology charts for the same reason.
But IF I am wrong and you can find it, please copy/paste/link the relevant chapter that meets Koch's postulates. It's not complicated. Anyone familiar with agar and mushroom propagation can likely grasp a proof.
Koch's four postulates are:
1. The bug MUST BE FOUND in organisms suffering from the disease but should not be found in healthy organisms.
2. The bug MUST BE ISOLATED from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured bug SHOULD CAUSE DISEASE when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The bug MUST BE RE-ISOLATED from the inoculated, diseased experimental host AND identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
(I'll focus on HIV because once that con game is understood you'll recognize variations of the same game, viruses, diseases, vaccines, treatments, etc.)
Whether the widget you/we/they call HIV evolved naturally or was "lab-created", there's no replicable proof that their alleged "immune-system ravaging virus" ravages anything. If it did, my team would've spotted it in the many blood samples drawn, spun, and examined under electron microscopy from our oddly unravaged HIV+ clients. At ~80nm, it's easily spotted when spun and isolated. If that bug "ravages" anything, we'd have seen it and reported our evidence as Gallo and Montagnier should have reported and published it decades ago.
People die for many reasons, but there is no credible proof that HIV has ever sickened or killed anyone or anything. I'm not saying that people don't perish from deadly and unnecessary medical interventions (the third leading cause of death in the US [Starfield 2000]) or that reckless practitioners haven't signed death certificates; but having physically examined 100+ alleged HIV+ clients, it's curious that none have been "ravaged" by the alleged bug that allegedly causes an "ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME".
â(T)he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only ONE INVESTIGATOR who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus⌠There is no such thing as consensus science. If itâs consensus, it isnât science. If itâs science, it isnât consensus. Period.â -
- Michael Crichton MD
Yours is a good story, too.
I'll cobble together some pertinent responses, which are not of my own drafting.
"So far there has been 1,500,000 isolations (http://www.Gisaid.org)
475,000 sequences (http://sars2.cvr.gla.ac.uk/cog-uk/)
and so many purifications of the sars-cov2 virus as they needed many copies to create antiviral molecules for further study which you can buy from 100's of websites - 1 example:(https://thenativeantigencompany.com/products/sars-cov-2-purified-viral-lysate/) and this is just from a few organisations, theres 100's across the world running their own studies, experiments and tests. Someone even went out of their way to demonstrate that Koch's postulates can be met, eventhough its a 130 years out of date practise (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32215622/)."
Why is it out of date? Here's why:
"Letâs start with that German microbiologist. Robert Koch was born in 1843 and by all accounts was a very clever chap. He trained as a doctor before becoming one of the founders of microbiology as a field of experimental science. Before his death in 1910 he made lots of important contributions. In the 1870s he discovered that anthrax was caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis, the first time a specific microbe was linked to a specific disease. He followed that up in 1882 with his discovery that the slow-growing bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis was the cause of tuberculosis (TB). Better known back then as consumption, TB had long been thought to be a hereditary disease.
Kochâs postulates, aka how to tell whether a microbe causes disease
Robert Koch is also famous for his âpostulatesâ, the four conditions he and his mentor Jakob Henle postulated had to be met for a microbe to be considered the cause of a disease. It is these postulates that have now been discovered by the internet and (badly) applied to Covid-19. This is how Kochâs postulates were first laid out more than 130 years ago:
The organism must always be present, in every case of the disease.
The organism must be isolated from a host containing the disease and grown in pure culture.
Samples of the organism taken from pure culture must cause the same disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible animal in the laboratory.
The organism must be isolated from the inoculated animal and must be identified as the same original organism first isolated from the originally diseased host.
So, in the light of the 21st century how do the postulates hold up? Well, the first one was soon abandoned by Koch himself with the discovery that people could be asymptomatic carriers of the microbes responsible for cholera and typhoid fever. In the years since, weâve come to understand that many microbes can live in and on people and only cause disease under certain circumstances. Weâve also come to understand that some microbes can set off a chain reaction that leads to disease long after the organism in question has been cleared by the immune system.
The second postulate should really read something like: it would be nice if the organism could be isolated and grown in pure culture. Thatâs because we donât even know the conditions under which many microbes grow outside of their host. Take Mycobacterium leprae which causes leprosy. As far as we know, that can only grow in humans, nine-banded armadillos, and a mouseâs footpad. Just because we canât grow it in pure culture doesnât mean it isnât responsible for leprosy. Indeed, using genomic sequencing, we know there are way more microbes than weâve ever been able to grow in pure culture.
Obviously postulates three and four suffer from the same issue if the microbe canât be grown in culture. Postulate three would also be better phrased as should cause the same disease when inoculated into a susceptible animal in the laboratory. I say should and specify susceptible because we also now know that some microbes canât cause disease in a healthy host but can if the host is immune-compromised.
But wait! What about viruses?
The worst thing about Kochâs postulates is that they were formulated before viruses were known to exist. Viruses arenât like the bacteria that Koch was busy discovering. Viruses need to take over a host cell to replicate. In other words, they turn cells into virus-producing factories. And depending on what proteins a virus has on its surface, it may only be able to infect very specific cells from certain host species, or a wide range of cells from lots of different species.
Thatâs why when virologists want to isolate a virus from a sample theyâll take the sample or some part of it and add it to some cells â usually ones that are relatively easy to grow in the lab â and then look to see if the cells die and/or if there are any virus particles released into the liquid nutrient bath the cells are growing in.
In other words, viruses canât be grown in pure culture as described by Kochâs postulates because they need a cell to grow in. Does that mean viruses donât cause disease? No.
Bringing Kochâs Postulates into the 20th century
Over 30 years ago, one of the modern-day leaders of microbiology Professor Stanley Falkow reworded Kochâs Postulates to bring them more up to date. Falkow, who died in 2018, was at the forefront of research into how specific genes possessed by particular microbes contribute to their ability to cause disease. In a nutshell his âMolecular Postulatesâ state that:
The trait under investigation should be associated with pathogenic members of a genus or pathogenic strains of a species. Pathogenic means having the ability to cause disease.
Specific inactivation of the gene(s) associated with the suspected trait should lead to a measurable loss in pathogenicity or virulence in a suitable animal host. In other words, inactivating the gene or genes should mean there is less disease.
Reactivating the gene or genes should restore the ability of the microbe to cause disease in a suitable animal host.
Even with these updated postulates, itâs still not currently possible to satisfy them for many microbes that cause human disease as they rely on the ability to be able to grow and genetically manipulate the microbe in question and have a suitable animal model. That doesnât mean the postulates arenât useful, just that microbiologists might not completely rule out an organism or gene being involved in causing disease even if the postulates canât be fulfilled."
More info: https://merylnass.substack.com/p/is-the-virus-real
And some very interesting info about this SARS-CoV-2 virus: https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/how-to-blast-your-way-to-the-truth
You're well versed, but I prefer not to argue theology. I haven't memorized the pseudoscientific gibberish, but past and recent experience reminds us that when one cannot explain claims to 14-year-olds, it means that the theologian either does not understand it or is trying to confuse his audience for one's own self-interest or gain.
I'll agree that, like LAV/HIV, what we call SARS-CoV-2 may have been isolated and sequenced. Unfortunately, I haven't found REPLICABLE PROOF that the cultured bug causes serious disease when introduced into healthy organisms; nor has that bug been RE-ISOLATED from the inoculated, diseased experimental host NOR identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent. Nor does any of this really matter:
We know that most Covid "cases" were identified with meaningless PCR tests and that most Covid deaths were caused by iatrogenic CDC protocols (test-isolation-Remdesivir-intubation) that replaced proven interventions (steroids, rest, Ivermectin, etc.). The CDC protocols were designed to cripple and kill patients to drive the hysteria, lockdowns, and $4 trillion wealth redistribution from the middle class to our Ruling Class.
If SARS-CoV-2 represented the existential threat to humanity that the CDC/NIH/CIA and pharma-funded Fake News alleged, they wouldn't have had to lie and promote deadly interventions to kill the people they ostensibly wanted to save - nor would our feral gov't have paid doctors and hospitals to sicken and kill their patients.
So let's not descend into these pointless pseudoscientific rabbit holes - Here's the bottom line:
Before 1900, infectious disease (ID) mortality was the leading cause of death at >800/100K. By 1955, ID became statistically insignificant at <50/100K - decades before today's 75+ toxic child vaccines were invented.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2585966
Because Infectious disease mortality from measles, pertussis, diphtheria, polio, TB, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, covid, the flu (etc.) became statistically insignificant by 1955 - DECADES before 95% of today's vaccines became available - it's clear (as China and other countries prove today) that no countermeasures come close to the effectiveness as our natural immunity as designed by our Creator. Pseudoscientific research and vaccines are made for profits, not healthcare. Infectious disease mortality wasn't successfully fought by virologists nor epidemiologists - that war was won by plumbers.
v/r RK
Agreed. There is Hep vax. There is HIV. There is gp120 and associated pathologies. There is something called AIDS and then there is something called AZT, but they aren't all the same thing as you know from investigating it in great detail!
Indeed:
HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
AZT is one of many pharmaceutical toxins that causes AIDS.
Ryan White was one of MANY who were sacrificed on Fauci's alter.
Wow! This gives new meaning to the Pradhan paper that found go120 in spike protein, and repeated mRNA injections. A friend of mine got Behçetâs disease eruption after shots. That may explain it?
I would recommend looking into this:
"An immune evasion mechanism with IgG4 playing an essential role in cancer and implication for immunotherapy"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32819973/
Absolutely. I reviewed that paper in the last Substack.
And it didn't matter if the IgG4 abs were non-specific or not.
https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/spike-protein-inc-vax-induced-immunodeficiency-819
Thank you for this extensive summary. Can only add to this topic:
https://mejbcart.substack.com/p/how-much-hiv-is-in-sars-cov-2-faucis
Thank you, Doorless Carp! As usual, dumbo me is really trying to understand your brilliant science!!
And, I am so pleased to have this opportunity to repeat one of my favorite mejbcart lines:
"Two completely different origins of HIV and SARS-CoV-2 canât end up with so many essential identities, unless the bats landed once in San Francisco and ended up with AIDS, if one believes in the âofficial narrativeâ! HIV is OLD, SARS-CoV-2 is NEW."Â
Many thanks to luminous volunteers, Doorless Carp and mejbcart.