Mr. Mowrey - feel free to contact me to discuss the lab origin of HIV. Your genetic analysis is interesting. There are substantial amounts data beyond what you've addressed here.
Thank you for discussing the arguments seriously instead of framing them as "crackpot conspiracy theories".
The genetic diversity is a strong argument against "my" hbv-thesis. But is important to consider that there are ony 3 samples older than the US-Samples from 1978. 2 of the 3 were found by Michael Worobey at the same place the one from 1959 was found (1960 and 1966). If Worobey was able to find 3 samples at the same place it would mean that HIV and AIDS must have been quite common in Kinshasa. It is hard to believe that belgian doctors wouldnt have noticed a new disease. People didn't use condoms and prostitution was widespread. So in a population of a city were there could be find 3 samples from the late 50s and early 60s AIDS would have been noticed in my opinion.
I never found a convenient point to address the lack of noticing except in my other reply which I think you have read below. This reply was very off-hand, I now have a less naive understanding of the medical scene in Africa at the time thanks to Pépin's book, but it leads to the same conclusion I offered, and he posits it as well - the "opportunistic infections" that result from AIDS-immunosuppression in Africa before 1980 are not going to be rare diseases but most likely tuberculosis, so just blending in with normal patient traffic.
Besides the Worobey Kinshasa samples there is also mentioned in Pépin's book, the Kinshasa well-baby clinic, .8% of mothers in 1970, and Yambuku (Ebola outbreak samples) remote village, .8% in 1976. So these predate the Hep B trial surveys even if not involving sequencing. The intermediary link of Haiti depends on retrospective molecular analysis after 1981, but seems to fill in the picture. (But I haven't double-checked any of the original work here.)
I have a tab open with your link now - I will read it before finally getting back to concluding the series.
Next Up: Watch for the moment when the pathogen cooked up in a lab is released -- said pathogen has been designed to exploit the damage done to the immune systems of 6 billion humans -- and kill them. (the other 2B starve)
Worobey is a fraud. His estimation of the first HIV crossover into humans was made using a 'relaxed' molecular clock, which is total bullshit. His motivation was specifically to counter Hooper's OPV-AIDS theory. Sharp is also a member of Worobey's crew and thus can be similarly dismissed.
HIV would have had plenty of opportunity to mutate and recombine in humans, given that the oral polio vaccine amplified using chimp sera was tested on millions of them in the 1950s. This is referred to as a punctuated event.
The earliest known human HIV cases are probably very, very close in time to the earliest that actually existed. Colonial doctors in Africa exchanged correspondence and kept detailed journals. It is very unlikely that any cases of AIDS were missed during the first half of the 20th century, given its unique presentation of symptoms. If HIV was in humans before the 1950s, we would have known about it.
Cachexia, is what the Greeks called it. Others called it Waster’s disease. Been around a long time before the monkey - blood theory. And perhaps that’s just muddying the waters to obscure what is said in Romans 1: 27 “27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Molecular clocks likely underestimate age of events. My post clearly expresses my view that Worobey's dates are probably too recent if anything. So I'm hardly moved by pearl-clutching about relaxing clocks. The point anyway is that there are different ways to run the numbers and they point in a similar direction.
It isn't going to be unique in Africa. The whole point of the modern African vaccination craze is that people in Africa were still getting sick all the time after the West developed hygiene and better nutrition. So you get HIV in Africa, come down with a parasite or malaria, how can anybody even notice HIV's role. On the other hand if you hold that it is going to be unique in Africa, but posit that the development of subgroups was actually a result of polio vaccine-induced infections, actual replication of HIV in other words in polio vaccine recipients, where was the noticing?
But really it's just wishful thinking. "Oh, [I wish] this great genetic diversity doesn't mean it was endemic in humans."
Jacques Pepin's The Origin of AIDS is a good book that covers much of the same ground as this article. He states the virus crossed over from chimps to humans at the start of the 20th century, but laid dormant until unsanitary vaccination campaigns in the 1950's spread it through the population. The virus then jumped to Haiti before making its way to the US.
Very helpful, identified a large mistake in my characterization of the geography of early spread and a small mistake in my chimpanzee labelling. Thanks.
Correcting the first mistake has helped me better articulate the concept I was trying to model regarding the lack of recombination in pre-1980s 1M strains.
Thank you for the link, I'll see what he has to say about the unsanitary campaigns. I think medical needle use/reuse is probably responsible for the late-20th explosion in Africa one way or the other, but this isn't really different from the official/default explanation. To me, it's intuitive, you have an endemic human virus that isn't so harmful when naturally infecting in mucosa, then you throw medical needle use at this population and now you have a problem with direct blood infection, it's the same thing that happened with polio imo.
> The association of homosexuality with these myths is merely an apocryphal understanding of the text according to Anglosphere sexual mores.
The Koran explicitly refers to homosexuality in its recounting of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was written ~1300 years ago, outside of the Anglosphere.
“Do you approach males among the worlds, and leave those whom your Lord has created for you as your wives? Nay, you are a people of transgressing!” - 26:165-166.
Who can deny that Islam is a better foundation for trad-ism? Still it seems that if the towns and their destruction had a real basis, and also were hotbeds of homosexuality, this would have been mentioned in the Hebrew and Christian texts, as opposed to simple references to what seem like inhospitality to strangers (and why would homosexuals turn away strangers). Of course one can imagine that this is all embarrassment and self-censorship on the part of the strangers. At all events my impression is that there's no text basis for the understanding in modern Christendom.
All of the evidence which I’ve examined and considered argues strongly that the virus referred to as HIV is a rather widespread and benign retrovirus which is utterly incapable of creating a life-threatening immune system depression in anyone whose immune system is healthy, properly nutrified, and functioning competently.
The AIDS scare principally involved three groups: 1) highly promiscuous gay males, 2) intravenous drug abusers, and 3) hemophiliacs. These seemingly disparate groups had one very important feature in common - the chronic and excessive use of chemicals which were toxic to the progenitor cells needed to maintain healthy levels of immune cell populations. Many of these mother cells are located in the marrow of the long bones because they're extremely sensitive to background radiation. So, nature, in her wisdom, saw fit to bury them within a densely calcified matrix. However, they're equally sensitive to chemical toxins, as seen with cancer chemotherapy patients who won't be treated when their T and B cell counts are still too low. I’ll repeat that with emphasis, STILL TOO LOW. That’s clinic-speak for “that last burst of poisonous chemicals which we pumped into you wreaked havoc on your sensitive stem cells and they’re struggling to make a comeback”.
Now, the "fast-track" gay males were as promiscuous in their use of recreational drugs as they were in their pursuit of virtually anonymous sexual expression. Poppers, for example, are extremely toxic to stem cells of all types. Chronic use is a virtual prescription for a dangerously under-performing immune system.
The intravenous drug abusers were not only using copious amounts of highly concentrated and immune-compromising recreational drugs but they were also sharing needles. Needless to say, the sharing of needles is an excellent method for the direct transmission of not only potential pathogens but also relatively harmless retroviruses such as HIV.
Lastly, the treatments for hemophiliacs involved taking clotting factors which had to be pooled from large numbers of blood donations. Consequently, it’s not at all surprising that virtually all hemophiliacs were subsequently found to have antibodies against the HIV virus.... but absolutely NO circulating titers of the virus itself.
In addition, a majority of the “AIDS" victims probably had chronic nutritional deficiencies and most engaged in practices which are known to spread parasites of every description. Consequently, most could be expected to be antibody positive for a virus which was already a ubiquitous, albeit yet to be discovered, viral parasite of humans. Unfortunately, improved techniques for the detection of unknown viruses in humans and other animals came along roughly at the same time that virologists were desperately searching to find a microbial explanation for this horrific immune deficiency syndrome, later referred to as "AIDS".
When a high percentage of people amongst all three of these at-risk groups were found to be antibody-positive for HIV, this hapless "new” virus was given a reputation which was totally undeserved. It was chronic chemical intoxication and corruption of blood that doomed those poor souls, not HIV. Any bloom of pathogenic microbes in mammals is a symptom of an underlying immune system dysfunction, PERIOD. The immune compromise occurs BEFORE the bloom of viruses, or other opportunistic infections, or exotic cancers such as Kaposi’s sarcoma, or any other benign or malignant cellular dysplasias which occur in humans at absurdly high rates.
What’s more, the “HIV causes AIDS” theory could not explain the large number of people who exhibited all of the symptoms of this new plague but who were found to have no circulating antibodies against the HIV virus. Instead of trying to explain this troubling phenomenon, the medical industrial complex chose to ignore it for political and monetary interests. Money subsequently poured into BigPharma to synthesize even more toxic drugs to treat the harmless HIV virus instead of educational programs which would instruct all citizens on how to keep their immune systems vigorously healthy.
It appears from all of this that AIDS was misnamed. It was not ACQUIRED as a severe infective agent which then spread through intimate human contact. If anything was acquired, it was the shared drugs and risky lifestyles amongst friends and lovers that were so dangerously unhealthy with regard to vigorous immune surveillance and functioning.
BTW, Dr. Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" is essential reading for anyone who needs a far more thorough explanation for this heretical "theory" regarding what I'll always refer to as IDS, not AIDS...
This is all very good information and I am inclined to agree. I only quibble with 'Any bloom of pathogenic microbes in mammals is a symptom of an underlying immune system dysfunction, PERIOD.' the 'Any' in this portion and the idea that the problem uniformly predates the infection. Certainly it often does and this is an important and underrecognized fact of pathology but the idea that this is the only pathway for microbial disease seems unlikely and certainly unproven. But as I say, I think that you are generally right. You make a good point about people who display AIDS symptom complexes but don't have HIV antibodies but I think an even better one comes from the millions of people who are HIV positive with no decrease in T-cell counts or symptoms.
An HIV-positive finding simply means that the individual was exposed at some point in his/her life, conceivably even in utero, and the immune system did precisely what it's designed to do - generate antibodies which will be rapidly protective against any future exposures. As a trained microbiologist (now retired), I slowly evolved my thinking about the entire "germ theory of disease" and find myself at this point firmly in the terrain theory camp of Louis Pasteur's contemporary, Antoine Bechamp. It's been claimed that Pasteur even admitted late in life (some believe it was a deathbed confession) that his theory wasn't wrong, it was merely incomplete. Yes, microbes of every description can and do create problems for humans but they seldom do for those in superb health and condition. We know, thanks to Otto Warburg’s Nobel-prize-winning life's work, that malignant cancers, for example, thrive in bodies which are too acidic and hypoxic. The same is true for pathogenic microbes. My feeling is that they’re opportunistic only, unless weaponized by man’s horrific attempts to play God, of course.
Humans today are the sickest animals on the planet. Rather than adopt the idea that microbes are becoming more virulent and dangerous, we really should see our ill health as what it is - a gradual departure from the shelter of nature and nature’s laws and the gradual assault on both the biosphere in general and our individual bodies in particular with man’s hideously toxic industrial chemicals.
I don’t enjoy feeling unwell. Rigorous detoxification protocols, routine cleansing of the organs of elimination, periodic fasting, full spectrum nutritional supplementation, and a return to clean water and a mostly raw, organic, diet has kept me, now approaching 72, in ridiculously excellent health compared to most others of my age. I recommend the same strategy for all, unless you wish to suffer all of the maladies which “befall” mankind. Too many people today are racing to an early grave, with the last few years of their lives being absolutely miserable. Health is a choice, so I choose health… with a focus on keeping my immune system in peak operating efficiency.
Bugs be damned! Take care of your immune system and it will most assuredly take care of you. Caveat emptor…
I don't disagree to any great extent. Mostly I think, or should say would guess, that HIV-1M is not intrinsically more harmful than any average immune-cell-infecting virus, of which we have many, except thanks to a combination of circumventing mucosal immunity (gays, drug users, maybe experimental blood medicine, check), and network effects (gays, drug users, maybe experimental blood medicine, check). The first contribute to higher and more heterogeneous doses of the virus and so a higher fraction of T Cells converts to provirus before antibodies arrive and the second, network effects turns this higher fraction into a feedback loop as now everyone receiving doses of the virus is receiving higher doses. Otherwise, perhaps, HIV-1M wouldn't be very deadly, and we see it doesn't seem to be a problem in heterosexuals, probably because no trauma to mucosa and no network effects.
Newsflash...Dr Judy Mikovits was working in the same biodefence labs back in the 1980’s and has tried more than a dozen times to tell the story of AIDS ...and monkey cell lines....she mentions how Fauci plagiarised the work of another scientist on AIDS...took credit and pushed ATZ...he just loves dumping his experiments on Africans....and blaming them for outbreaks his lab has produced.
This, again, just attempts to explain the default narrative -- virus new in 1980 -- without recognizing that it is silly and obviously wrong. Virus not new in 1980.
"but in truth, not much substance managed to find its way into the discussion."
-----
But enough about Freedom Conference?
----
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, "is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?" Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
------
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."
Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that.
Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.
------
1969. Planned Parenthood Director Richard Day presentation recollection as recounted in 1988 by Pediatrician Lawrence Dunegan
--------
In other news, we have a brand new DOD Cancer "Moonshot".
See strangely, the Henrietta Lacks STEMS back in the day just made some key errors and had to start over again.
HIV filled a preexisting negative space in the American hypermedia landscape. It isn't surprising that it would have been 'predicted' because anyone could look at what wasn't driving news but would be really apt to do so - this is the essence of fiction and forecasting, you're really just understanding what works as a story but isn't being told yet. When HIV stopped being interesting to anyone, the same thing started to happen with flu, and we take this as the prediction for SARS-CoV-2, all the way up to 2019. "Scary new disease" is just a niche that naturally has purchase in the TV media landscape. It is a thing that people can understand as being "a thing," something to fret over.
When you go back to pre-modern discussions of diseases, writings from the 1800s to 1920s, there's no logic to predicting "new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable" because that just described everything. You read about veterinary diseases for example, in the 1800s, you're straight into the chaos of Flemish Renaissance peasant fish-monster orgies. Miasma just flying around out of nowhere, making horses flip upside-down, whatever. It wouldn't make sense to predict what was already happening all the time. So the prediction of a strange new disease in the age of antibiotics and better general hygiene is itself a manifestation of antibiotics and better general hygiene, it doesn't have the power to cause the strange new disease.
Brian, I get that you are welded, bonded, screwed and glued to the Virus Paradigm. One day though you are going to have to produce actual evidence that somewhere, somehow, someone took a sample from a man or woman with certain symptoms claimed to be a particular disease/illness and the 'Virus' was isolated to a sample of just THAT Virus which was then identified AND which subsequently when another man or woman who had no indication of the particular disease/illness was exposed to the Claimed 'Virus' that individual also developed the same disease/illness. As far as I know non one has achieved such a feat. Robert Gallo's samples he claimed were of HIV mysteriously got destroyed and he could not or did not reproduce HIV to the best of my knowledge. Did Luc Montagnier ever do so? Neither provided the true evidence required I believe, just a supposed 'test' for it which was in reality an Antibody measure.
UNTIL you Brian can produce independently verifiable evidence of the process described above, the concept of 'Virus' and their roll as pathogenic agents in producing disease/illness conditions in people rem ains purely theoretical.
Since the late 1980's i have been on the lookout for ANY 'Virus' evidence linked to an illness condition titled Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) which in this naming suggests it is not a disease/illness condition caused by a pathogenic agent. Syndrome for me means 'cause unknown'. From Wikipedia....
A syndrome is a set of medical signs and symptoms which are correlated with each other and often associated with a particular disease or disorder. The word derives from the Greek σύνδρομον, meaning "concurrence".
As I have said often, I am "wedded" to an epistemically neutral observation which predates microscopes that diseases invisibly transmit between animals. So the thing that you think microscopes have failed to verify never depended on microscopes. It's macro. Diseases macro-observably transmit between animals via macro-invisible "somethings," and the word for these somethings is "viruses." Your fixation on the tenuous nature of the micro explanation for the macro is merely reflection of lack of faith in intuition.
Brian, I would love to see a conversation between you and Tom Cowan, co-author of "The Truth About Contagion" (previously known with the title "The Contagion Myth"): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510768823/
In this book, the authors disprove that observation of invisible transmission of disease between animals (observing invisible things? I'm in SHOCK!)
One irrational criticism against the arguments presented in this book is the accusation of "Gnosticism." Let's keep the conversation on this bank of the river of metaphysics, and focus on the arguments. I want to know if their arguments are wrong, and why.
In the last page of my copy of this book, it is claimed that Pasteur committed fraud: "In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these [Pasteur's] notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his
studies."
It is also written there: "Since Pasteur’s day, no one has demonstrated experimentally the transmissibility of disease with pure cultures of bacteria or viruses." It doesn't explicitly claim the universality of this claim extending to all animals, but it can be deduced from the context.
Cowan explains his arguments in a very popular style, aimed to the common man. He defers the debunking of Pasteur to Geison, from 1914. I haven't red Geison's book. Does anyone in this board know if the book of Geison has any value, or is it just wrong? And why?
[edit: there is an error in the date of the book. Geison's "The private science of Louis Pasteur" was first published in 1995; I assume the author of the quote was using a 2014 edition, which was then erroneously quoted as 1914 in his book.]
Wrong mate it is the other way around. How can ANYONE say a 'Virus' is involved unless the agent in question is somehow isolated to the single element by purification and shown to transmit the same response in another BECAUSE it is a Virus?
Miasmas were believed to be the agent of disease/illness especially for Malaria (Italian for Bad Air apparently) yet it was the materials passed from a mosquito it was found as the vector. Has it been conclusively proven with independently repeatable processes that the 'agent' causing the disease/illness condition known to be Malaria is definitively an identifiable 'Virus'?
Medicos at the training camp in the US considered the origin of the so called Spanish Flu in 1918, tried transferring the disease/illness by having ill soldiers spit, cough or sneeze or whatever directly into/onto another soldier who did not have the same illness. Failed to infect was apparently the result. Florence Nightingale apparently noted that a patient would develop a disease/illness having had no know con tact with anyone with the disease/illness and others in contact with the patient also did not get the same disease/illness. Hospital staff. all of them, would have rapidly contracted illnesses like Leprosy which was subsequently found not to be infectious as originally believed.
i do not need a microscope, or use one when reading claims that do not add up, lack the evidence to support the claims or use faulty reasoning or logic. People share far more than most know especially all the waste that our bodies must expel to extend our chances of living. Any overload or sufficient quantity of rarely if ever encountered material from one individual encountered by another is a good place to start looking at transmission effects. That the reaction may be similar in many yet different if only subtly (or not) in many, should not surprise as the receiver swill differ one to the other naturally. That ANY piece of this mixed puzzle is a 'Virus' as claimed has in my view never been conclusively established.
Your position Brian is not neutral if you continue to posit something not conclusively known to exist as an identifiable entity let alone be proven as the active agent in disease/illness is THE cause of that disease/illness.
"How can ANYONE say a 'Virus' is involved unless the agent in question is somehow isolated to the single element by purification and shown to transmit the same response in another BECAUSE it is a Virus?"
By literally just saying it. You are imposing a false requirement that wasn't even worried about before microscopes. Viruses are observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting somethings. No one before antibiotics and vaccines would have claimed there isn't invisible disease transmission. So the idea that some standard needs to be met to prove something that was widely believed before standards were possible, nonsense. You disagree with the belief, fine, but your reasons are fallacious and personally motivated, they aren't arguments.
Fallacious and personally motivated? Strange way for a 'neutral' reporting and discussing a subject to respond to someone's comments and questioning!!
If we observe a rifle fired, see some flash and maybe some smoke and some distance away someone falls over dead we may quickly deduce that the two events are somehow 'connected'. To PROVE the connection is not necessary if it is regularly and perhaps consistently observed. No one needs to know ANYTHING about a bullet and its part in the process and will not see the bullet transit to the one who dies. Evidence is directly observable as the process is endlessly repeatable.
BUT. To say a bullet IS the element that does the harm, and kills, is all speculation and belief UNTIL the bullet is identified, isolated and shown to be transmitted and in entering the one who dies, IS the cause of that death. Otherwise it could be said the rifle, or the one who uses it, is the cause of the death as these too are always present and must be.
To say the cause of death is a bullet is a Claim. To show that the bullet was in the rifle, was fired to transmit to the one who dies and that the bullet was the cause of that death, is to provide the evidence to support the Claim.
Without evidence, independently verifiable evidence, ALL CLAIMS are just that, a Claim without substance and effectively Void, ie empty.
The whole concept of something that is called a VIRUS is simply a belief, and the whole system called Vaccination based upon that belief in a Virus and how to mitigate any ill effects a Virus may have by injecting a substance into a body is also a belief. These are Claims which remain unsubstantiated UNTIL independently verifiable evidence is found to support those Claims.
This is fundamental reasoning that is older than time and deeply embedded in almost all activity of people everywhere.
A whole industry, medical practices, government activities and legal systems have embodied the 'belief' in the existence of something called a Virus and the foundation of Vaccination is based upon that belief and it is affecting millions of people's lives. All on a belief ?? To say that Viruses as 'observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting somethings' exist because they are 'observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting something' makes no sense to me. This is like demanding that ghosts exist because a macro-invisible curtain moving something can be seen as the curtains sometimes move apparently on their own. Could something other than a ghost be involved?
Just because a belief says something exists and how it can affect people does not make it true and especially not simply because it is given a name. And a claim that a certain process shows 'something' observable that could be a substance deserving of the classification 'Virus' also does not PROVE it is what is claimed until it can be repeatedly shown to be what it is claimed to be as the transmissible agent spreading disease/illness as claimed. PLUS no other element or force can be shown to produce the same results.
'Fallacious'? How am I promoting a false belief when I am actually challenging what I believe MAY BE a false belief? What has 'personally motivated' me other than a desire to question what I see as a belief? Why is that a wrong thing to do?
Lies, myths and bare belief can be intolerant of questions, truth welcomes every challenge.
Millions have died and millions more may yet die while far more millions face what is left of their lives as disabled people due to a 'belief' in infectious agents called a 'Virus' and the use of injected materials falsely called a 'vaccine' in promoting the 'belief' that a 'vaccine may counter a 'virus'.
Could the injection in reality be a 'bullet' in an open war to kill or maim as many as possible on a battlefield most cannot see? Calling a common disease/illness condition an epidemic caused by an invisible something called a 'virus' based upon a belief in order to insist on the injection of the many MUST be questioned at ALL levels. Nothing 'fallacious or personally motivated' about asking these questions.
Oct 2, 2023·edited Oct 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Great post. I like Nick P also. The story of HIV is still being written. In the epoch preceding hypodermic needles, mass world travel, rapidly developed serum vaccines, and gay saunas, HIV would stay in the remote corners of the world, if it existed among people. It is possible that the modern progress explosively brought it into limelight.
What kept it remote from European populations? Since Vasco deGama et al, and the Brbari pirates and the Slave Trade and likely well before there has been countless close contact opportunities. Sailors have a well deserved reputation of finding their way to intimate contact with any females regardless of race, colour or damn near any other social or physical barrier since time began.
It doesn't need to be remote, merely not replenished and amplified, if the non-primate-adjacent conditions of spread tend to lead to a lot of strain die-off. There really isn't any way to observe what HIV was doing in the West back when getting sick and dying was unremarkable, so only the lack of genetic diversity in the West in the 1980s can support the idea that HIV wasn't already widespread outside of Africa. But if the pre-modern West didn't have gay meccas and needle-based drugs, nothing is really remarkable about this absence.
I think that this is a very good point. The AIDS epidemic is rather...unremarkable. Once it got divorced from early diagnostic conditions, like Kaposi's sarcoma, it really does require blood samples to detect. From NIH, 'Opportunistic infections are the most common presenting clinical manifestations that ultimately lead to a diagnosis of AIDS. The clinical recognition of these infections requires a high degree of suspicion, a familiarity with the many complexities of AIDS-related infections, and expert microbiological assistance.' If AIDS was present in a less medically vigilant society or one where diseases weren't diagnosed based on blood chemistry it would just be a guy who gets sick a lot.
Yet what is called AIDS remained almost exclusively a Gay disease/illness (almost exclusively male too) and or a shared needle drug user's and or maybe a sex worker's disease/illness. Pathogenic 'Virus' particles must be unbelievably selective to restrict their activity or victim selections to a lifestyle or three and in no way as infectious as most believe or is usually claimed. Or did i miss something here?
The virus does not care about the sexual orientation, it spreads through any blood to blood contact. For example, anal sex is anal sex whether it is M-M or M-F. I know that in Russia many were infected due to poor sterilization practices at medical offices.
I still ask where is the evidence that a microscopic element or material or substance was involved in all cases diagnosed as AIDS? The so called 'test' for AIDS could not detect anything we could call HIV. IF it is a virus, then it does not enter a 'standard' body, as such a standard cannot exist and everything entering a body by any means joins a very active environment that influences the whole process. Interactive is the word.
Florence Nightingale repeatedly observed the wounded getting sicker and 'somehow' infected with other disease/illness conditions that did not infect anyone else and had no clear vector including such conditions as Cholera. How did it get there if it is transmitted? And if it is free to infect anyone why only those who were already suffering disease/illness or injury? I accept bacteria as harmful and transmissible by unclean hands, pens etc.
The gay communities where the condition of AIDS did so much harm had sizable populations of people who had lifestyles that at best could be called 'less than healthy'. There were others like serious drug taking communities who also had 'less than healthy' lifestyles and it seems at least interesting that the AIDS 'epidemic' struck almost exclusively these groups and seems to hit a barrier preventing infections beyond these groups. Why not children and so many others in contact with those suffering AIDS if this was a highly infectious transmitted disease/illness involving something microscopic called a virus? Could it have been 'something' else or very likely a combination of 'somethings'?
Who transmitted what and to whom requires that the mechanism of transmission be isolated, identified, and shown to be the cause of the transmitted condition. For sure poor sterilization practices could transmit a lot more than anything that might be called a Virus. It proves only that what transmits, all of it, maybe resulted in a similar disease/illness condition appearing in another individual. No evidence at all that an element being called a Virus was the only agent involved, or even was involved at all, IF it does exist.
I find it seriously interesting that the images shown endlessly during 2020 across almost all major TV news showing what was called SARS-Cov-2 looked identical to those shown for HIV and were I suspect nothing more than CGI, maybe with different colours. I tracked back to images shown around late 1980's for HIV and hey presto - identical. And the whole Pandemic scare and info-war propaganda were almost identical too. BTW no spikes then?
Interesting too that microscopic images of live Exosomes, waste from cell activity I believe, look identical to images claimed to be a 'Corona' virus with spikes - yes I am to believe they are THOSE spikes by the narrative promoting this belief.
When do we ask if this presented information being force fed to all people is potentially full of BS? When something is being rammed down my throat i cough it up and spit it out and have a hard look at it. Why am I being pushed or forced to swallow whatever it is?
Asking questions is not wrong it is essential, and intolerance to questioning is tyranny which is not even acceptable. Could there be another agenda, something else happening?
Mr. Mowrey - feel free to contact me to discuss the lab origin of HIV. Your genetic analysis is interesting. There are substantial amounts data beyond what you've addressed here.
Nick Petosky @pizzapicklespur
I was one of the two bloggers mentioned in the video showing facrbid "where to look".
https://aron2201sperber.wordpress.com/2023/01/16/why-did-a-pandemic-caused-by-a-chimpanzee-virus-start-in-nyc-and-california/
Thank you for discussing the arguments seriously instead of framing them as "crackpot conspiracy theories".
The genetic diversity is a strong argument against "my" hbv-thesis. But is important to consider that there are ony 3 samples older than the US-Samples from 1978. 2 of the 3 were found by Michael Worobey at the same place the one from 1959 was found (1960 and 1966). If Worobey was able to find 3 samples at the same place it would mean that HIV and AIDS must have been quite common in Kinshasa. It is hard to believe that belgian doctors wouldnt have noticed a new disease. People didn't use condoms and prostitution was widespread. So in a population of a city were there could be find 3 samples from the late 50s and early 60s AIDS would have been noticed in my opinion.
I never found a convenient point to address the lack of noticing except in my other reply which I think you have read below. This reply was very off-hand, I now have a less naive understanding of the medical scene in Africa at the time thanks to Pépin's book, but it leads to the same conclusion I offered, and he posits it as well - the "opportunistic infections" that result from AIDS-immunosuppression in Africa before 1980 are not going to be rare diseases but most likely tuberculosis, so just blending in with normal patient traffic.
Besides the Worobey Kinshasa samples there is also mentioned in Pépin's book, the Kinshasa well-baby clinic, .8% of mothers in 1970, and Yambuku (Ebola outbreak samples) remote village, .8% in 1976. So these predate the Hep B trial surveys even if not involving sequencing. The intermediary link of Haiti depends on retrospective molecular analysis after 1981, but seems to fill in the picture. (But I haven't double-checked any of the original work here.)
I have a tab open with your link now - I will read it before finally getting back to concluding the series.
Here is where Worobey found his samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKcmrfPZKHg
and here is what the inventor of PCR-testing is saying about it:
https://youtu.be/Xc0Kysti6Kc
"If you look well enough, you can find anything you want in everything you want with PCR."
Here's my theory...
HIV/AIDS was an experiment aimed at determining how to destroy the immune system of humans.
What was learned in developing HIV/AIDS has been incorporated into the Covid 'Vaccine'
Mission Accomplished https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/5-ways-to-skin-a-genetically-modified
Next Up: Watch for the moment when the pathogen cooked up in a lab is released -- said pathogen has been designed to exploit the damage done to the immune systems of 6 billion humans -- and kill them. (the other 2B starve)
Worobey is a fraud. His estimation of the first HIV crossover into humans was made using a 'relaxed' molecular clock, which is total bullshit. His motivation was specifically to counter Hooper's OPV-AIDS theory. Sharp is also a member of Worobey's crew and thus can be similarly dismissed.
HIV would have had plenty of opportunity to mutate and recombine in humans, given that the oral polio vaccine amplified using chimp sera was tested on millions of them in the 1950s. This is referred to as a punctuated event.
The earliest known human HIV cases are probably very, very close in time to the earliest that actually existed. Colonial doctors in Africa exchanged correspondence and kept detailed journals. It is very unlikely that any cases of AIDS were missed during the first half of the 20th century, given its unique presentation of symptoms. If HIV was in humans before the 1950s, we would have known about it.
Thank you for your comments.
Cachexia, is what the Greeks called it. Others called it Waster’s disease. Been around a long time before the monkey - blood theory. And perhaps that’s just muddying the waters to obscure what is said in Romans 1: 27 “27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Molecular clocks likely underestimate age of events. My post clearly expresses my view that Worobey's dates are probably too recent if anything. So I'm hardly moved by pearl-clutching about relaxing clocks. The point anyway is that there are different ways to run the numbers and they point in a similar direction.
It isn't going to be unique in Africa. The whole point of the modern African vaccination craze is that people in Africa were still getting sick all the time after the West developed hygiene and better nutrition. So you get HIV in Africa, come down with a parasite or malaria, how can anybody even notice HIV's role. On the other hand if you hold that it is going to be unique in Africa, but posit that the development of subgroups was actually a result of polio vaccine-induced infections, actual replication of HIV in other words in polio vaccine recipients, where was the noticing?
But really it's just wishful thinking. "Oh, [I wish] this great genetic diversity doesn't mean it was endemic in humans."
I'll add commentary according to my relevant qualifications...
-
Western gorilla: "Hmmm... there could be something to it"
Chimp: "Yeah, maybe he's onto something"
Mona monkey: "whoah, nuts!"
Skykes's monkey: "aa...aaare you sh..suuure? This deviates so much from the official story, I'm not comfortable..."
Mandrill: "This has serious implications"
L'Hoest's monkey: "Those MFers... I gonna killemall"
Red-capped mangabey: "I'm not sure what to say..."
Mantled guereza: "You antivaxxers, get outa here!"
Sooty mangabey baby: "No idea what he talking about, but I'm scared" [mama: worried]
Vervet Monkey: "Can I haz banana?"
Jacques Pepin's The Origin of AIDS is a good book that covers much of the same ground as this article. He states the virus crossed over from chimps to humans at the start of the 20th century, but laid dormant until unsanitary vaccination campaigns in the 1950's spread it through the population. The virus then jumped to Haiti before making its way to the US.
https://a.co/d/3a45BSx
Very helpful, identified a large mistake in my characterization of the geography of early spread and a small mistake in my chimpanzee labelling. Thanks.
Correcting the first mistake has helped me better articulate the concept I was trying to model regarding the lack of recombination in pre-1980s 1M strains.
Thank you for the link, I'll see what he has to say about the unsanitary campaigns. I think medical needle use/reuse is probably responsible for the late-20th explosion in Africa one way or the other, but this isn't really different from the official/default explanation. To me, it's intuitive, you have an endemic human virus that isn't so harmful when naturally infecting in mucosa, then you throw medical needle use at this population and now you have a problem with direct blood infection, it's the same thing that happened with polio imo.
> The association of homosexuality with these myths is merely an apocryphal understanding of the text according to Anglosphere sexual mores.
The Koran explicitly refers to homosexuality in its recounting of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and it was written ~1300 years ago, outside of the Anglosphere.
“Do you approach males among the worlds, and leave those whom your Lord has created for you as your wives? Nay, you are a people of transgressing!” - 26:165-166.
Who can deny that Islam is a better foundation for trad-ism? Still it seems that if the towns and their destruction had a real basis, and also were hotbeds of homosexuality, this would have been mentioned in the Hebrew and Christian texts, as opposed to simple references to what seem like inhospitality to strangers (and why would homosexuals turn away strangers). Of course one can imagine that this is all embarrassment and self-censorship on the part of the strangers. At all events my impression is that there's no text basis for the understanding in modern Christendom.
All of the evidence which I’ve examined and considered argues strongly that the virus referred to as HIV is a rather widespread and benign retrovirus which is utterly incapable of creating a life-threatening immune system depression in anyone whose immune system is healthy, properly nutrified, and functioning competently.
The AIDS scare principally involved three groups: 1) highly promiscuous gay males, 2) intravenous drug abusers, and 3) hemophiliacs. These seemingly disparate groups had one very important feature in common - the chronic and excessive use of chemicals which were toxic to the progenitor cells needed to maintain healthy levels of immune cell populations. Many of these mother cells are located in the marrow of the long bones because they're extremely sensitive to background radiation. So, nature, in her wisdom, saw fit to bury them within a densely calcified matrix. However, they're equally sensitive to chemical toxins, as seen with cancer chemotherapy patients who won't be treated when their T and B cell counts are still too low. I’ll repeat that with emphasis, STILL TOO LOW. That’s clinic-speak for “that last burst of poisonous chemicals which we pumped into you wreaked havoc on your sensitive stem cells and they’re struggling to make a comeback”.
Now, the "fast-track" gay males were as promiscuous in their use of recreational drugs as they were in their pursuit of virtually anonymous sexual expression. Poppers, for example, are extremely toxic to stem cells of all types. Chronic use is a virtual prescription for a dangerously under-performing immune system.
The intravenous drug abusers were not only using copious amounts of highly concentrated and immune-compromising recreational drugs but they were also sharing needles. Needless to say, the sharing of needles is an excellent method for the direct transmission of not only potential pathogens but also relatively harmless retroviruses such as HIV.
Lastly, the treatments for hemophiliacs involved taking clotting factors which had to be pooled from large numbers of blood donations. Consequently, it’s not at all surprising that virtually all hemophiliacs were subsequently found to have antibodies against the HIV virus.... but absolutely NO circulating titers of the virus itself.
In addition, a majority of the “AIDS" victims probably had chronic nutritional deficiencies and most engaged in practices which are known to spread parasites of every description. Consequently, most could be expected to be antibody positive for a virus which was already a ubiquitous, albeit yet to be discovered, viral parasite of humans. Unfortunately, improved techniques for the detection of unknown viruses in humans and other animals came along roughly at the same time that virologists were desperately searching to find a microbial explanation for this horrific immune deficiency syndrome, later referred to as "AIDS".
When a high percentage of people amongst all three of these at-risk groups were found to be antibody-positive for HIV, this hapless "new” virus was given a reputation which was totally undeserved. It was chronic chemical intoxication and corruption of blood that doomed those poor souls, not HIV. Any bloom of pathogenic microbes in mammals is a symptom of an underlying immune system dysfunction, PERIOD. The immune compromise occurs BEFORE the bloom of viruses, or other opportunistic infections, or exotic cancers such as Kaposi’s sarcoma, or any other benign or malignant cellular dysplasias which occur in humans at absurdly high rates.
What’s more, the “HIV causes AIDS” theory could not explain the large number of people who exhibited all of the symptoms of this new plague but who were found to have no circulating antibodies against the HIV virus. Instead of trying to explain this troubling phenomenon, the medical industrial complex chose to ignore it for political and monetary interests. Money subsequently poured into BigPharma to synthesize even more toxic drugs to treat the harmless HIV virus instead of educational programs which would instruct all citizens on how to keep their immune systems vigorously healthy.
It appears from all of this that AIDS was misnamed. It was not ACQUIRED as a severe infective agent which then spread through intimate human contact. If anything was acquired, it was the shared drugs and risky lifestyles amongst friends and lovers that were so dangerously unhealthy with regard to vigorous immune surveillance and functioning.
BTW, Dr. Peter Duesberg's book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" is essential reading for anyone who needs a far more thorough explanation for this heretical "theory" regarding what I'll always refer to as IDS, not AIDS...
This is all very good information and I am inclined to agree. I only quibble with 'Any bloom of pathogenic microbes in mammals is a symptom of an underlying immune system dysfunction, PERIOD.' the 'Any' in this portion and the idea that the problem uniformly predates the infection. Certainly it often does and this is an important and underrecognized fact of pathology but the idea that this is the only pathway for microbial disease seems unlikely and certainly unproven. But as I say, I think that you are generally right. You make a good point about people who display AIDS symptom complexes but don't have HIV antibodies but I think an even better one comes from the millions of people who are HIV positive with no decrease in T-cell counts or symptoms.
An HIV-positive finding simply means that the individual was exposed at some point in his/her life, conceivably even in utero, and the immune system did precisely what it's designed to do - generate antibodies which will be rapidly protective against any future exposures. As a trained microbiologist (now retired), I slowly evolved my thinking about the entire "germ theory of disease" and find myself at this point firmly in the terrain theory camp of Louis Pasteur's contemporary, Antoine Bechamp. It's been claimed that Pasteur even admitted late in life (some believe it was a deathbed confession) that his theory wasn't wrong, it was merely incomplete. Yes, microbes of every description can and do create problems for humans but they seldom do for those in superb health and condition. We know, thanks to Otto Warburg’s Nobel-prize-winning life's work, that malignant cancers, for example, thrive in bodies which are too acidic and hypoxic. The same is true for pathogenic microbes. My feeling is that they’re opportunistic only, unless weaponized by man’s horrific attempts to play God, of course.
Humans today are the sickest animals on the planet. Rather than adopt the idea that microbes are becoming more virulent and dangerous, we really should see our ill health as what it is - a gradual departure from the shelter of nature and nature’s laws and the gradual assault on both the biosphere in general and our individual bodies in particular with man’s hideously toxic industrial chemicals.
I don’t enjoy feeling unwell. Rigorous detoxification protocols, routine cleansing of the organs of elimination, periodic fasting, full spectrum nutritional supplementation, and a return to clean water and a mostly raw, organic, diet has kept me, now approaching 72, in ridiculously excellent health compared to most others of my age. I recommend the same strategy for all, unless you wish to suffer all of the maladies which “befall” mankind. Too many people today are racing to an early grave, with the last few years of their lives being absolutely miserable. Health is a choice, so I choose health… with a focus on keeping my immune system in peak operating efficiency.
Bugs be damned! Take care of your immune system and it will most assuredly take care of you. Caveat emptor…
I don't disagree to any great extent. Mostly I think, or should say would guess, that HIV-1M is not intrinsically more harmful than any average immune-cell-infecting virus, of which we have many, except thanks to a combination of circumventing mucosal immunity (gays, drug users, maybe experimental blood medicine, check), and network effects (gays, drug users, maybe experimental blood medicine, check). The first contribute to higher and more heterogeneous doses of the virus and so a higher fraction of T Cells converts to provirus before antibodies arrive and the second, network effects turns this higher fraction into a feedback loop as now everyone receiving doses of the virus is receiving higher doses. Otherwise, perhaps, HIV-1M wouldn't be very deadly, and we see it doesn't seem to be a problem in heterosexuals, probably because no trauma to mucosa and no network effects.
Newsflash...Dr Judy Mikovits was working in the same biodefence labs back in the 1980’s and has tried more than a dozen times to tell the story of AIDS ...and monkey cell lines....she mentions how Fauci plagiarised the work of another scientist on AIDS...took credit and pushed ATZ...he just loves dumping his experiments on Africans....and blaming them for outbreaks his lab has produced.
This, again, just attempts to explain the default narrative -- virus new in 1980 -- without recognizing that it is silly and obviously wrong. Virus not new in 1980.
"but in truth, not much substance managed to find its way into the discussion."
-----
But enough about Freedom Conference?
----
NEW DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE AND UNTREATABLE DISEASES
Next heading to talk about is Health and Disease. He said there would be new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable - at least for along time. No elaboration was made on this, but I remember, not long after hearing this presentation, when I had a puzzling diagnosis to make, I would be wondering, "is this was what he was talking about? Is this a case of what he was talking about?" Some years later, as AIDS ultimately developed, I think AIDS was at least one example of what he was talking about. I now think that AIDS probably was a manufactured disease.
------
FALSIFIED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Somewhere in this connection, then, was the statement admitting that some scientific research data could be - and indeed has been - falsified in order to bring about desired results. And here was said, "People don't ask the right questions. Some people are too trusting."
Now this was an interesting statement because the speaker and the audience all being doctors of medicine and supposedly very objectively, dispassionately scientific and science being the be all and end-all ... well to falsify scientific research data in that setting is like blasphemy in the church ... you just don't do that.
Anyhow, out of all of this was to come the New International Governing Body, probably to come through the U.N . and with a World Court, but not necessarily through those structures. It could be brought about in other ways. Acceptance of the U.N . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty.
------
1969. Planned Parenthood Director Richard Day presentation recollection as recounted in 1988 by Pediatrician Lawrence Dunegan
--------
In other news, we have a brand new DOD Cancer "Moonshot".
See strangely, the Henrietta Lacks STEMS back in the day just made some key errors and had to start over again.
We'll get there this time. Promise.
HIV filled a preexisting negative space in the American hypermedia landscape. It isn't surprising that it would have been 'predicted' because anyone could look at what wasn't driving news but would be really apt to do so - this is the essence of fiction and forecasting, you're really just understanding what works as a story but isn't being told yet. When HIV stopped being interesting to anyone, the same thing started to happen with flu, and we take this as the prediction for SARS-CoV-2, all the way up to 2019. "Scary new disease" is just a niche that naturally has purchase in the TV media landscape. It is a thing that people can understand as being "a thing," something to fret over.
When you go back to pre-modern discussions of diseases, writings from the 1800s to 1920s, there's no logic to predicting "new diseases to appear which had not ever been seen before. Would be very difficult to diagnose and be untreatable" because that just described everything. You read about veterinary diseases for example, in the 1800s, you're straight into the chaos of Flemish Renaissance peasant fish-monster orgies. Miasma just flying around out of nowhere, making horses flip upside-down, whatever. It wouldn't make sense to predict what was already happening all the time. So the prediction of a strange new disease in the age of antibiotics and better general hygiene is itself a manifestation of antibiotics and better general hygiene, it doesn't have the power to cause the strange new disease.
Preexisting negative spaces in American hypermedia landscapes...(🤔)
Do not come out of nowhere. I doubt that anything in "hypermedia landscapes" hebbben organically.
Brian, I get that you are welded, bonded, screwed and glued to the Virus Paradigm. One day though you are going to have to produce actual evidence that somewhere, somehow, someone took a sample from a man or woman with certain symptoms claimed to be a particular disease/illness and the 'Virus' was isolated to a sample of just THAT Virus which was then identified AND which subsequently when another man or woman who had no indication of the particular disease/illness was exposed to the Claimed 'Virus' that individual also developed the same disease/illness. As far as I know non one has achieved such a feat. Robert Gallo's samples he claimed were of HIV mysteriously got destroyed and he could not or did not reproduce HIV to the best of my knowledge. Did Luc Montagnier ever do so? Neither provided the true evidence required I believe, just a supposed 'test' for it which was in reality an Antibody measure.
UNTIL you Brian can produce independently verifiable evidence of the process described above, the concept of 'Virus' and their roll as pathogenic agents in producing disease/illness conditions in people rem ains purely theoretical.
Since the late 1980's i have been on the lookout for ANY 'Virus' evidence linked to an illness condition titled Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) which in this naming suggests it is not a disease/illness condition caused by a pathogenic agent. Syndrome for me means 'cause unknown'. From Wikipedia....
A syndrome is a set of medical signs and symptoms which are correlated with each other and often associated with a particular disease or disorder. The word derives from the Greek σύνδρομον, meaning "concurrence".
As I have said often, I am "wedded" to an epistemically neutral observation which predates microscopes that diseases invisibly transmit between animals. So the thing that you think microscopes have failed to verify never depended on microscopes. It's macro. Diseases macro-observably transmit between animals via macro-invisible "somethings," and the word for these somethings is "viruses." Your fixation on the tenuous nature of the micro explanation for the macro is merely reflection of lack of faith in intuition.
Brian, I would love to see a conversation between you and Tom Cowan, co-author of "The Truth About Contagion" (previously known with the title "The Contagion Myth"): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510768823/
In this book, the authors disprove that observation of invisible transmission of disease between animals (observing invisible things? I'm in SHOCK!)
One irrational criticism against the arguments presented in this book is the accusation of "Gnosticism." Let's keep the conversation on this bank of the river of metaphysics, and focus on the arguments. I want to know if their arguments are wrong, and why.
In the last page of my copy of this book, it is claimed that Pasteur committed fraud: "In 1914, Professor Gerard Geison of Princeton University published an analysis of these [Pasteur's] notebooks, which revealed that Pasteur had committed massive fraud in all his
studies."
It is also written there: "Since Pasteur’s day, no one has demonstrated experimentally the transmissibility of disease with pure cultures of bacteria or viruses." It doesn't explicitly claim the universality of this claim extending to all animals, but it can be deduced from the context.
Cowan explains his arguments in a very popular style, aimed to the common man. He defers the debunking of Pasteur to Geison, from 1914. I haven't red Geison's book. Does anyone in this board know if the book of Geison has any value, or is it just wrong? And why?
[edit: there is an error in the date of the book. Geison's "The private science of Louis Pasteur" was first published in 1995; I assume the author of the quote was using a 2014 edition, which was then erroneously quoted as 1914 in his book.]
Wrong mate it is the other way around. How can ANYONE say a 'Virus' is involved unless the agent in question is somehow isolated to the single element by purification and shown to transmit the same response in another BECAUSE it is a Virus?
Miasmas were believed to be the agent of disease/illness especially for Malaria (Italian for Bad Air apparently) yet it was the materials passed from a mosquito it was found as the vector. Has it been conclusively proven with independently repeatable processes that the 'agent' causing the disease/illness condition known to be Malaria is definitively an identifiable 'Virus'?
Medicos at the training camp in the US considered the origin of the so called Spanish Flu in 1918, tried transferring the disease/illness by having ill soldiers spit, cough or sneeze or whatever directly into/onto another soldier who did not have the same illness. Failed to infect was apparently the result. Florence Nightingale apparently noted that a patient would develop a disease/illness having had no know con tact with anyone with the disease/illness and others in contact with the patient also did not get the same disease/illness. Hospital staff. all of them, would have rapidly contracted illnesses like Leprosy which was subsequently found not to be infectious as originally believed.
i do not need a microscope, or use one when reading claims that do not add up, lack the evidence to support the claims or use faulty reasoning or logic. People share far more than most know especially all the waste that our bodies must expel to extend our chances of living. Any overload or sufficient quantity of rarely if ever encountered material from one individual encountered by another is a good place to start looking at transmission effects. That the reaction may be similar in many yet different if only subtly (or not) in many, should not surprise as the receiver swill differ one to the other naturally. That ANY piece of this mixed puzzle is a 'Virus' as claimed has in my view never been conclusively established.
Your position Brian is not neutral if you continue to posit something not conclusively known to exist as an identifiable entity let alone be proven as the active agent in disease/illness is THE cause of that disease/illness.
"How can ANYONE say a 'Virus' is involved unless the agent in question is somehow isolated to the single element by purification and shown to transmit the same response in another BECAUSE it is a Virus?"
By literally just saying it. You are imposing a false requirement that wasn't even worried about before microscopes. Viruses are observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting somethings. No one before antibiotics and vaccines would have claimed there isn't invisible disease transmission. So the idea that some standard needs to be met to prove something that was widely believed before standards were possible, nonsense. You disagree with the belief, fine, but your reasons are fallacious and personally motivated, they aren't arguments.
Fallacious and personally motivated? Strange way for a 'neutral' reporting and discussing a subject to respond to someone's comments and questioning!!
If we observe a rifle fired, see some flash and maybe some smoke and some distance away someone falls over dead we may quickly deduce that the two events are somehow 'connected'. To PROVE the connection is not necessary if it is regularly and perhaps consistently observed. No one needs to know ANYTHING about a bullet and its part in the process and will not see the bullet transit to the one who dies. Evidence is directly observable as the process is endlessly repeatable.
BUT. To say a bullet IS the element that does the harm, and kills, is all speculation and belief UNTIL the bullet is identified, isolated and shown to be transmitted and in entering the one who dies, IS the cause of that death. Otherwise it could be said the rifle, or the one who uses it, is the cause of the death as these too are always present and must be.
To say the cause of death is a bullet is a Claim. To show that the bullet was in the rifle, was fired to transmit to the one who dies and that the bullet was the cause of that death, is to provide the evidence to support the Claim.
Without evidence, independently verifiable evidence, ALL CLAIMS are just that, a Claim without substance and effectively Void, ie empty.
The whole concept of something that is called a VIRUS is simply a belief, and the whole system called Vaccination based upon that belief in a Virus and how to mitigate any ill effects a Virus may have by injecting a substance into a body is also a belief. These are Claims which remain unsubstantiated UNTIL independently verifiable evidence is found to support those Claims.
This is fundamental reasoning that is older than time and deeply embedded in almost all activity of people everywhere.
A whole industry, medical practices, government activities and legal systems have embodied the 'belief' in the existence of something called a Virus and the foundation of Vaccination is based upon that belief and it is affecting millions of people's lives. All on a belief ?? To say that Viruses as 'observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting somethings' exist because they are 'observable as macro-invisible disease transmitting something' makes no sense to me. This is like demanding that ghosts exist because a macro-invisible curtain moving something can be seen as the curtains sometimes move apparently on their own. Could something other than a ghost be involved?
Just because a belief says something exists and how it can affect people does not make it true and especially not simply because it is given a name. And a claim that a certain process shows 'something' observable that could be a substance deserving of the classification 'Virus' also does not PROVE it is what is claimed until it can be repeatedly shown to be what it is claimed to be as the transmissible agent spreading disease/illness as claimed. PLUS no other element or force can be shown to produce the same results.
'Fallacious'? How am I promoting a false belief when I am actually challenging what I believe MAY BE a false belief? What has 'personally motivated' me other than a desire to question what I see as a belief? Why is that a wrong thing to do?
Lies, myths and bare belief can be intolerant of questions, truth welcomes every challenge.
Millions have died and millions more may yet die while far more millions face what is left of their lives as disabled people due to a 'belief' in infectious agents called a 'Virus' and the use of injected materials falsely called a 'vaccine' in promoting the 'belief' that a 'vaccine may counter a 'virus'.
Could the injection in reality be a 'bullet' in an open war to kill or maim as many as possible on a battlefield most cannot see? Calling a common disease/illness condition an epidemic caused by an invisible something called a 'virus' based upon a belief in order to insist on the injection of the many MUST be questioned at ALL levels. Nothing 'fallacious or personally motivated' about asking these questions.
Great post. I like Nick P also. The story of HIV is still being written. In the epoch preceding hypodermic needles, mass world travel, rapidly developed serum vaccines, and gay saunas, HIV would stay in the remote corners of the world, if it existed among people. It is possible that the modern progress explosively brought it into limelight.
What kept it remote from European populations? Since Vasco deGama et al, and the Brbari pirates and the Slave Trade and likely well before there has been countless close contact opportunities. Sailors have a well deserved reputation of finding their way to intimate contact with any females regardless of race, colour or damn near any other social or physical barrier since time began.
It doesn't need to be remote, merely not replenished and amplified, if the non-primate-adjacent conditions of spread tend to lead to a lot of strain die-off. There really isn't any way to observe what HIV was doing in the West back when getting sick and dying was unremarkable, so only the lack of genetic diversity in the West in the 1980s can support the idea that HIV wasn't already widespread outside of Africa. But if the pre-modern West didn't have gay meccas and needle-based drugs, nothing is really remarkable about this absence.
I think that this is a very good point. The AIDS epidemic is rather...unremarkable. Once it got divorced from early diagnostic conditions, like Kaposi's sarcoma, it really does require blood samples to detect. From NIH, 'Opportunistic infections are the most common presenting clinical manifestations that ultimately lead to a diagnosis of AIDS. The clinical recognition of these infections requires a high degree of suspicion, a familiarity with the many complexities of AIDS-related infections, and expert microbiological assistance.' If AIDS was present in a less medically vigilant society or one where diseases weren't diagnosed based on blood chemistry it would just be a guy who gets sick a lot.
Yet what is called AIDS remained almost exclusively a Gay disease/illness (almost exclusively male too) and or a shared needle drug user's and or maybe a sex worker's disease/illness. Pathogenic 'Virus' particles must be unbelievably selective to restrict their activity or victim selections to a lifestyle or three and in no way as infectious as most believe or is usually claimed. Or did i miss something here?
The virus does not care about the sexual orientation, it spreads through any blood to blood contact. For example, anal sex is anal sex whether it is M-M or M-F. I know that in Russia many were infected due to poor sterilization practices at medical offices.
I still ask where is the evidence that a microscopic element or material or substance was involved in all cases diagnosed as AIDS? The so called 'test' for AIDS could not detect anything we could call HIV. IF it is a virus, then it does not enter a 'standard' body, as such a standard cannot exist and everything entering a body by any means joins a very active environment that influences the whole process. Interactive is the word.
Florence Nightingale repeatedly observed the wounded getting sicker and 'somehow' infected with other disease/illness conditions that did not infect anyone else and had no clear vector including such conditions as Cholera. How did it get there if it is transmitted? And if it is free to infect anyone why only those who were already suffering disease/illness or injury? I accept bacteria as harmful and transmissible by unclean hands, pens etc.
The gay communities where the condition of AIDS did so much harm had sizable populations of people who had lifestyles that at best could be called 'less than healthy'. There were others like serious drug taking communities who also had 'less than healthy' lifestyles and it seems at least interesting that the AIDS 'epidemic' struck almost exclusively these groups and seems to hit a barrier preventing infections beyond these groups. Why not children and so many others in contact with those suffering AIDS if this was a highly infectious transmitted disease/illness involving something microscopic called a virus? Could it have been 'something' else or very likely a combination of 'somethings'?
Who transmitted what and to whom requires that the mechanism of transmission be isolated, identified, and shown to be the cause of the transmitted condition. For sure poor sterilization practices could transmit a lot more than anything that might be called a Virus. It proves only that what transmits, all of it, maybe resulted in a similar disease/illness condition appearing in another individual. No evidence at all that an element being called a Virus was the only agent involved, or even was involved at all, IF it does exist.
I find it seriously interesting that the images shown endlessly during 2020 across almost all major TV news showing what was called SARS-Cov-2 looked identical to those shown for HIV and were I suspect nothing more than CGI, maybe with different colours. I tracked back to images shown around late 1980's for HIV and hey presto - identical. And the whole Pandemic scare and info-war propaganda were almost identical too. BTW no spikes then?
Interesting too that microscopic images of live Exosomes, waste from cell activity I believe, look identical to images claimed to be a 'Corona' virus with spikes - yes I am to believe they are THOSE spikes by the narrative promoting this belief.
When do we ask if this presented information being force fed to all people is potentially full of BS? When something is being rammed down my throat i cough it up and spit it out and have a hard look at it. Why am I being pushed or forced to swallow whatever it is?
Asking questions is not wrong it is essential, and intolerance to questioning is tyranny which is not even acceptable. Could there be another agenda, something else happening?