I am proof that Covid is real

That link does not talk about drug consumption, but there are others. For example, this one about John Lauritsen:

https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data2/jlbio.htm

John Lauritsen ... In the summer of 1969 he joined the Gay Liberation Front ...
...
He now suspected that some lifestyle environmental factor was killing people, not a microbe.

Shortly thereafter, he stumbled across an article describing Hank Wilson, a well-known homosexual rights activist in San Francisco. Wilson was waging a one-man crusade against the use of "poppers", the nitrate compounds inhaled almost entirely by "fast track" male homosexuals as bathhouse aphrodisiacs and muscle relaxants. The volatile drugs made anal intercourse easier by relaxing the anal sphincter, but also had toxic effects on the blood and other parts of the body. Wilson had taken up this cause after friends who used poppers heavily began suffering swollen lymph nodes, which had led him to research the chemical nature of the nitrites. He founded the Committee to Monitor Poppers in 1981, warning homosexuals of the dangers and lobbying for legal bans on the substance.

Lauritsen began corresponding with him, and soon concluded that poppers and other recreational drugs being used in the bathhouses played some role in AIDS and other sickness. As a member of the New York Safer Sex Committee, Lauritsen began circulating warnings about poppers... He then turned to Wilson, and the two of them helped push Congress into outlawing poppers a few years later. By February 1985, Lauritsen was able to publish his first article on AIDS, exposing the CDC's statistical tricks in hiding the association between poppers and the syndrome...

 

I know all about the homosexual liberation. There was a lot of recreational drug use and anal sex prior to the eighties. It wasn’t until 1981 that the first cases of what was going to designated as AIDS started showing up. Why did AIDS only start showing up in the early 80's when anal sex and recreational drug use had been occurring for many years prior. Perhaps because of a new virus called HIV causing AIDS.

So, the Perth Group indeed only has theories. And despite the fact there are thousands upon thousands of research studies to disprove their theories, you cling on to their absurdities by essentially ignoring years and years of research.

Regarding PrEP, Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). It helps protect people who might be at high risk for HIV through sex or injection drug use. It reduces the risk of contracting HIV through sexual contact by approximately 99 percent and reduces the risk of getting HIV by about 74 percent among people who inject drugs. You are asking why their are still quite a lot of new infections between homosexuals. Could it be that not all homosexual men are using PrEP?

Let's look at some numbers from the UK from 2020. Homosexual and bisexual males have experienced a dramatic decline in new infections, with rates falling by 71 percent. It has been attributed to a rise in the use of PrEP. In the USA, reports from 2017, indicated that less than 10 percent who are at substantial risk for HIV were actually using the medication. The only way that the 'illness' would be eradicated 'on this risk group' would be if 100 percent took PrEP.

The Perth group has argued that scientists have not proven the 'existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV'. Bullshit. HIV has been isolated and photographed, and its genome has been fully described.

They have not produced one iota of evidence that HIV does not exist. The research has consistently demonstrated over and over that sexual behaviour patterns and drug abuse patterns don't predict who develops AIDS. There is one common denominator related to developing AIDS and it is infection with HIV. People from diverse backgrounds have developed AIDS -- heterosexual men and woman, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, the sexual partners of hemophiliacs, injection drug users, infants, and those who have received tainted blood.

The Perth Group for some absurd reason believed that AIDS would not spread outside of the original risk groups. It has. You can't deny that. The Perth group also theorized that cessation of exposure to oxidants and/or use of anti-oxidants would improve the outcome of AIDS patients.

There are thousands of people whose lifestyles put them at risk for 'oxidative stress' so why is it that only those who are HIV positive develop immunodeficiency?

The Perth Group has blamed semen as being the potent oxidative agent causing illness only in homosexual men. There has been semen deposited into men's rectum for thousands of years, so why has semen only been a ‘potent oxidative’ agent since the 1970‘s?

Talking about 'oxidative agents', where is the Perth's Group actual evidence that semen, poppers, factor VIII are actually oxidative and cause AIDS. Where is the Perth's Group evidence that AIDS patients have been more exposed to cellular oxidizing agents than non-AIDS patients?

The problem with the Perth Group is 1. No proof of their theory 2. Thousands of pieces of research that demonstrates HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Are you trying to say that SARS-CoV-2 is an 'alleged' virus? How do you suppose people get Covid, if not from an infectious agent?

HIV is genetically diverse. The replication cycle of HIV is prone to frequent errors which means it puts out mutated copies of itself with recombine into new strains as the virus is passed from person to person. There are over 60 dominant strains of the virus an well as many many recombinant strains. Conventional vaccines can only protect against a limited number of viral strains. The virus is also able to hide from the body's immune defenses. You can read all about it at the provided links.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/hiv-vaccine-development-4057071
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/aids-hiv-vaccine-anniversary-immunity-antibodies

 

Not "many years", several years, the time necessary for serious symptoms of oxidation (i.e. AIDS) to appear since oxidation began. Remember that there weren't "HIV" tests.

I deny that, of course. AIDS has mainly been restricted to homosexuals, intravenous drug users, hemophiliacs and Africa. All those groups have one thing in common: they are exposed to oxidative agents.

You should prove that semen has been deposited into men's rectum for thousands of years and that not led to oxidation and a positive "HIV" test. Because those people are already dead, you can't prove.

Please read Perth Group's papers, specially those relative to oxidation:

http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/reappraisalofaids.html
http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/oxstresshivaids.html
http://theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/lookingback.html

We could go agent by agent and analyze if they are oxidative, one by one. In fact I put here a paragraph relative to semen, extracted from the first link above. What are your arguments against what it is said in that text?

I said days ago, and I repeat, that I have quite knowledge on the alleged "HIV" issue. I think I have demonstrated it here, and I could demonstrate quite more (with the only limit that I can't access some scientific papers) if I had a serious opponent, not an opponent like you who writes mainly propaganda and who doesn't want to read what the Perth Group asserts and questions.

Regarding the rest of viruses, I already said that I am not sure. I have read texts of Stefan Lanka and Thomas Cowan and they sound convincing, but I think the Perth Group are more serious and adheres more to the scientific method. Besides, I consider too difficult to dismantle the virus theory (all alleged viruses) in general, all at the same time. It seems more logical to go "virus by virus", one by one, starting with alleged HIV, and once admitted that its existence is not proven then go ahead with other alleged viruses.

 

I must clarify that, in Africa, a positive "HIV" test represents cross-reactions caused by an abundance of antibodies induced by the numerous infectious and parasitic diseases which are endemic there, not necessarily oxidation.

http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/africafactandfiction.html

 

Homosexual men have been depositing their semen in other men for thousands of years. Did semen all of sudden become oxidative in the 1970’s?. If semen in the rectum caused AIDS, then AIDS would have appeared many years prior to the 1970’s.

HIV tests were developed after gay men started getting symptoms of what they later called AIDS. There is no other literature prior to the the 1970’s that describes the symptoms of AIDS in the gay population even though homosexuality has been around forever. Therefore AIDS can’t caused by the deposition of semen into the rectum because AIDS has not been around forever like homosexuality. It’s not a coincidence that a brand new virus was causing the symptoms of a brand new disease.

Everybody on the planet has been exposed to oxidative agents and yet only HIV positive people go on to develop AIDS.

Can you prove that smallpox wasn’t around for thousands of years just because all the victims are dead. Well, there is a ton of literature describing the ‘pox’ and other symptoms which demonstrated its presence. There was no test for smallpox, the proof of it was a specific kind of skin rash progressing to pus filled pustules etc. It wasn’t until medicine was advanced enough that they identified what caused smallpox and developed a vaccine. Lack of any literature about AIDS-like symptoms prior to the 1970’s and the sudden appearance of specific symptoms pretty well demonstrates when AIDS began.

You are relying on a small group of people to try to assert something. I am not going to read your links, I have read enough of their unproven theories to last me a lifetime. All of their theories have been debunked repeatedly. Unlike you, I have also read a lot of research related to HIV/AIDS and I understand enough science to understand how unscientific and illogical the Perth Groups theories are. They are flat out wrong. If they were right, there would be scientific consensus and the existence of many studies demonstrating they are right — but since there are no supportive studies, we can certainly say they are wrong.

I do not go and read links about how the earth is supposed to be flat because I know the Earth is round. If some nutter flat-earther insists to me that the earth is flat and tells me to go read his links that contain proof that the earth is flat, it doesn’t make the earth flat. Just like you providing links to the Perth Group doesn’t mean that HIV isn’t real and all their other debunked statements.

What ever you want to believe doesn’t matter because the scientific consensus from thousands and thousands pieces of research is demonstrates that HIV causes AIDS.

Your knowledge relating to oxidation, viruses, the scientific process, scientific consensus, virology, immunology seems to be severely lacking.

You have cherry-picked an outdated and disproven theory about HIV/AIDS and have failed to understand it has been thoroughly debunked by reams of research.

You have demonstrated illogical thinking, an inability to present any clinical proof of the Perth’s Groups theories, the inability to discuss anything other than the Perth Group thereby ignoring reams of actual clinical research related to HIV/AIDS. You have demonstrated nothing other than clinging onto your faulty beliefs.

The Perth Group do not adhere to any scientific method whatsoever. They theorize only , they don’t do clinical research to support any of their theories. They ignore reams of research and their semen oxidation theory is easily shown to be stupid and illogical. All they do are making statements and living in a vast world of denial.

YOU don’t need to dismantle the virus theory because thousands of others have demonstrated viruses exist through replicated research and experimentation. Exactly what scientific knowledge do you possess to actually dismantle the virus ‘theory’? You don’t even seem to possess enough knowledge to understand that oxidation does not cause AIDS. You cling to a disproven theory probably due to your lack of scientific knowledge and tendency to cherry pick what matches your beliefs. The HIV theory is valid as the cause of AIDS.

 

I must clarify that you are spouting misinformation.

 

http://theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf

What is now known as the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) was first reported in 1981 as two diseases – a chronic pneumonia (PCP) caused by the fungal organism Pneumocystis carinii and Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS), a malignancy of uncertain histogenesis that principally involves the skin but may also occur in the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. Neither PCP nor KS were new diseases. What was new was the exponentially escalating incidence of what were two formerly rare diseases and their proclivity for a minor subset of young, sexually promiscuous, drug using homosexual men. Subsequently more diseases were added under the umbrella term “AIDS indicator diseases” which currently number, including PCP, KS, tuberculosis, candida (yeast) infections, lymphoma and cervical cancer.

Homosexuality was practically a clandestine activity before the gay liberation in the 1970s. Before those years, there could have been isolated cases of opportunistic infections (OIs), but the patients couldn't probably declare themselves as homosexuals (if they were homosexuals) and practicing anal sex, so a bond between OIs and anal sex could not be established.

Besides, poppers were not used by homosexuals before those years, and I said that poppers and semen have a synergistic effect causing oxidation, then a positive "HIV" test, then AIDS. For semen by itself causing AIDS and OIs, a high frequency of deposition into the rectum is necessary.

However, what it would be certainly strange is that the gay liberation, then the consumption of drugs and anal sex with ejaculation, suddenly "make" a new deadly virus.

I have nothing to comment about the rest of your post, only propaganda and an effort to discredit me, besides showing again your null intention to learn.

 

My post was not propaganda. I don’t need to discredit you because everything you post has been repeatedly discredited via thousands of pieces of research.

Homosexuality has been going on for thousands of years. The Perth Group has tried to assert that AIDS is caused by the oxidative agent — semen. Again, did semen only become an oxidative agent in the seventies? There is a lot of literature related to homosexual men throughout history having sex — clandestinely and not so clandestinely — yet there is nothing in the literature that mentions that some of these men were coming down with strange body wasting illnesses.

Nobody tried to claim that Pneumocystis carinii (PCP) and Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) were new diseases. Let's start with Pneumocystis carinii. It is extremely rare in healthy people and it's estimated that 20 percent of adults might carry the fungus that causes it at any given time. Healthy people are able to clear the fungus from their bodies due to having a proper functioning immune system. Those who get PCP have weakened immune systems so the body can't deal with the fungus properly and symptoms occur. It's estimated that about 30 - 40 percent of people who develop PCP have HIV/AIDS. Other conditions/things that weaken the immune system are chronic lung diseases, cancer, autoimmune diseases, organ transplants and taking corticosteroids. Kaposi's sarcoma is also caused by immune suppression in combination with Human Herpes Virus 8. This combination is referred to as KSHV. KSHV is highly prevalent in some regions of the world (Mediterranean, Eastern Europe, Middle East) and it tends to affect older men. Endemic KS is most common in Sub-Saharan Africa and symptomatically worse in children. People can develop KS following organ transplantation due to immunosuppression and mostly just affects the skin. KS occurs in people diagnosed with AIDS due to a weak immune system.

What is common to PCP and KS is the presence of a compromised immune system. People who are infected with HIV develop weakened immune systems which allows for opportunistic infections to gain a foothold. There are gay men out there who are not HIV positive who exchange lots of semen anally and do not develop opportunistic infections -- they should if the Perth Group was right with semen being the oxidative cause. If no HIV is present their immune systems don't weaken. The use of poppers in combination with supposed oxidative nature of semen has not been causally associated with the development of AIDS and its resulting OI’s. Ever!

The use of poppers was thought at one point to be associated with the development of AIDS but has been discounted now. How is it that only men who were HIV positive and used poppers went on to develop AIDS and men who weren’t HIV positive and used poppers did not go on to develop AIDS?

There are so many holes in the Perth Groups theories.

What was happening in the 1970's was that a virus was being transmitted through the gay population via exchange of bodily fluids. The virus was wreaking havoc on the immune system, weakening it, and opportunistic infections were occurring. It wasn't recreational drugs nor was it semen. It was a virus. It's been shown repeatedly over and over again.

The virus has obviously been transmitted heterosexually, transmitted to children via HIV positive mothers, to hemophiliacs via tainted blood, via needles and so forth.

The virus wasn't new. Duh. It wasn't recreational drug use nor anal sex with ejaculation that 'made' a new deadly virus. The new illness that they were going to call AIDS started with a small group of gay men in New York city. So there was this gay liberation going on and thousands of men were engaging in anal sex, using recreational drugs like poppers to enhance their sexual experience. So there was a prolific amount of anal sex in gay men and the Perth Group theorizes it's due to the oxidative nature of semen paired with the use of poppers. If AIDS was indeed caused by overexposure to sperm from many sources along with recreational drug use, why did only a limited number of men develop the new strange illness when thousands of men were engaging in the homosexual liberation at the same time? AIDS became more prevalent because of HIV being transmitted from person to person over time. Infected men were infecting other men, who were infecting other men, who were infecting other men.

Why you continue to espouse disproven bullshit that has been debunked repeatedly is beyond me. It doesn't matter how much proof you are given you cling to the claptrap of the Perth Group and ignore all manner of scientific consensus. It's fascinating in one respect how you can live with as much denial as you do. On the other hand it's really disturbing how you discount actual clinical research over the disproven theories of a handful of denialists.

 

You write lot of words and words in your posts thinking you have more reason that way, but you only get to write yarns.

I will only quote and reply the relevant things of your post:

Answered in my previous post. Before the 1970's you couldn't say to your doctor (nor anybody, practically) you were having anal sex with ejaculation. It was a furtive activity. Even if several homosexuals with OI's commented that (anal sex with ejaculation) to the doctor, maybe the doctor did not infer nor register a relation between the two because they were only isolated cases in all the world. Nevertheless, in the early 80's there were a considerable number of homosexuals in several advanced cities that had declared their sexual orientation and probably their activities, so a relation should have been inferred, and in fact some researchers inferred (Eleni Papadopulos among them), between those activities and the OI's. It was the alleged discovery of "HIV" that ruined that investigation.

You are speculating again.

http://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGSexTransMHNote.pdf

The claim that semen may play a role in the acquisition by the passive partner of AIDS and a positive test can only be proved or disproved by studying a sufficiently large sample of men/women who have no other risk factors for HIV/AIDS but a high frequency of passive anal intercourse with HIV negative men. Unfortunately, because of the substantive bias towards HIV, no such studies have been conducted.

However, there is at least some supportive evidence ... "In the year before testing, homosexual men who were seropositive tended to have a greater number of sexual partners (p = 0.009), more episodes of receptive anal intercourse (p < 0.001), and more frequent active (p < 0.001) and receptive (p = 0.023) insertion of hands into the rectum…The number of episodes of receptive anal intercourse per year was the variable most highly associated with HTLVIII/LAV [HIV] seropositivity (F = 27. p < 0.001). After adjustment for this variable, no other variable was statistically significant". In other words, in this study the number of episodes of receptive anal sex had more statistical significance than the number of partners. And in a subgroup of men analysed the quantity of semen was the only significant risk factor [58].

[58]. Nicholson JK, McDougal JS, Jaffe HW, et al. Exposure to human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus and immunologic abnormalities in asymptomatic homosexual men. Ann Int Med 1985;103:37-42.

But you have read very little about their theory, the most because I put that here. Before that, you don't even knew what they say about semen into the rectum as an oxidative agent that can lead to a positive "HIV" test and AIDS.

And worse, you don't want to read.

 

More precise would be to say that even if several homosexuals with OI's commented to the doctor that they had practiced anal sex with ejaculation, very probably the doctor did not infer a relation between the two facts (OI's and anal sex with ejaculation), so anal sex with ejaculation probably was not even registered nor mentioned anywhere. Probably was not registered the patient was homosexual either.

Besides, to a person to have OI's (i.e. advanced AIDS) only because of semen deposited into his rectum, high frequency and over a long period would be needed. It seems very unlikely that homosexuals previous to the 1970's had such exposure, given that homosexuality was a clandestine activity. It seems more logical to think that homosexual "affairs" and deposition of semen into the rectum were occasional, so the cases of OI's were minimal even between this group.

But this is only logical thinking. There are more important things, like the studies (that can't be developed with already dead people). I am still expecting one study showing that heterosexual intercourse (i.e. vaginal intercourse) can lead to a positive "HIV" test, or that homosexual insertive intercourse can lead to a positive "HIV" test.

 

I write a lot of words because you lack understanding, so I am trying to provide clear explanations. It’s much better than repeatedly supplying links to debunked information from the same useless ancient source as you keep doing.

This is exactly how they connected the dots to discovering that the OI's that previously healthy young men were experiencing were occurring in the population of young gay males in New York. Prior to the seventies, it is a moot point that men hide their homosexual behaviour because OI's would have occurred whether they were hiding their risky behaviour or not. The reason why OI's weren't occurring in that population was being HIV was not infecting that population -- yet.

Exactly, in New York and San Francisco men who were previously health were developing PCP and KS. It was discovered that the OI's were being caused in a new retrovirus -- HIV -- in that population of young men via the exchange of bodily fluids. In the beginning. Poppers were blamed and debunked. As the virus spread, HIV was detected in babies, children, woman, drug users who shared needles, in hemophiliacs who received tainted blood products.

That is something that can't be denied.

I know I will never break through your huge denial about HIV but the reason AIDS did not exist prior to the 1970’s because HIV was not infecting people.

And no matter what you try to assert — it has been demonstrated over and over for years on end that HIV causes AIDS.

The links you are posting are bullshit.

Perth group has been totally debunked for the last 25 years — over and over.

I don’t waste time reading bullshit debunked theories.

Semen does not lead to a positive HIV test, HIV leads to a positive HIV test. These tests are now 4th generation and are both valid and reliable. Of course if semen itself were to lead to positive HIV tests, then how are tests positive for HIV in the absence of any semen being involved at all?

To assert HIV does not exist means that thousands of virologist, immunologists, and biologists are wrong. Scientific consensus makes the Perth Group wrong. All the Perth Group have are theories and they are sincerely really bad and illogical and totally disproven.

Ridiculous.

It is possible, but unlikely for a person to become HIV positive after one single exposure related to anal sex. Frequency does increase the chances of getting infected but it isn't related to amount of semen, it's related to HIV. If a blood product is tainted with HIV, a person has a 92.5 % chance of contracting HIV -- why because the HIV goes directly into the blood. The possibility of becoming HIV positive is dependent on viral load (the higher the viral load in a person, the greater the chance of infecting a partner), multiple exposures, multiple sexual partners, and having an STI.

If you would stop looking at decades old theoretical bullshit from debunked pseudoscientists, you might learn something.

You are hopeless. You are illogical. You are clinging to faulty research because you just can't let yourself believe that HIV causes AIDS. What is that denial serving you? Is it magical thinking -- 'If I don't believe that HIV causes AIDS, I can never get AIDS'? You know people have died with that kind of thinking, including some pretty loud denialists including Christine Maggiore.

Maggiore was an HIV-positive denialist who killed her own daughter due to her denial. Maggiore, who was HIV positive, refused to take medication to prevent mother-to-child transmission. She refused to have her child tested. Her daughter died of AIDS-related pneumonia. In fact her daughter died of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia which was previously called Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP). How did a three year old become so immunocompromised and die of a pneumonia common with AIDS. Did she have cancer? Was she a transplant recipient? Was she taking immunosuppressive medications? No, no, and no. Her mother was HIV positive -- connect the dots. Maggiore died of AIDS in 2008. Maggiore was especially nasty because she told people not to engage in safe sex and to stop taking their anti-retrovirals.

The Perth Group is equally as disgusting.

Most scientists when repeatedly shown they are wrong admit they are wrong and move on.

 

New yarn, and propaganda, and silly things too, but I see you avoid the study I put in my previous post, probably because you don't understand it. In that case this link can help:

http://www.theperthgroup.com/LATEST/RATPGCommentary.html

From the very beginning of the AIDS era, with few exceptions, there has been a marked epidemiological bias towards an infectious cause of a positive antibody test and AIDS. In other words, despite knowledge that semen is toxic and immunosuppressive, data that may have shed light on a non-infectious cause of AIDS was not sought. The distinction is crucial: the more significant risk factor for semen is the number of episodes of passive anal sex with ejaculation; while for infectious agents it is the number of sexual partners. In case this distinction is not clear consider the following: The volume of the male ejaculate is reported to be 0.1-11 ml. Let us choose 5 ml as a typical quantity. In three months, for example, a gay man could have a hundred partners, each once, which would expose him to 500 ml of semen. Or he could have 50 partners, four times, which would expose him to a 1000 ml of semen. That is, half as many partners could expose him to twice the dose of semen. If a virus is the cause of a positive antibody test or AIDS then the hundred partners should pose more of a risk than the fifty partners. And vice versa. By performing such a study could have obtained a strong clue to a virus versus a non-virus causation. However, virtually no epidemiological study reports such data. What is reported is the number of (different) sexual partners, not the frequency of anal sex. One exception is a study by Janet Nicholson published in the Annals of Internal Medicine:

“In the year before testing, homosexual men who were seropositive tended to have a greater number of sexual partners (p = 0.009), more episodes of receptive anal intercourse (p < 0.001), and more frequent active (p < 0.001) and receptive (p = 0.023) insertion of hands into the rectum…The number of episodes of receptive anal intercourse per year was the variable most highly associated with HTLV-III/LAV seropositivity (F - 27. p < 0.001). After adjustment for this variable, no other variable was statistically significant”.

In other words, in this study the number of episodes of receptive anal sex had more statistical significance than the number of partners. And in a subgroup of men analysed the quantity of semen was the only significant risk factor. Hence epidemiologists forgot about semen. The early notion that semen may have been a cause of immunosuppression and AIDS was dismissed to the point evidence that could have added weight to this theory was not even collected. Yet these data should have been part of each and every study. But when a study, such as Nicholson’s was published, providing a strong clue, it appears to have gone unnoticed. If every study had collected the data Nicholson collected, and obtained the same statistical outcome, scientists may well have had a compelling scientific reason to doubt the claims made by Montagnier and Gallo that they had isolated a retrovirus which is sexually transmitted and is the cause of AIDS.

Any oxidative agent (drugs, Factor VIII and semen) can lead to a positive "HIV" test. Not only oxidative agents, there are other causes too. For example:

http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/africafactandfiction.html

However, this year no less a person than Myron Essex and his colleagues presented unambiguous evidence that both ELISA and WB may not be specific in Africa. Essex and his colleagues reported that "...leprosy patients and their contacts show an unexpectedly high rate of false-positive reactivity of HIV-1 proteins on both WB and ELISA". The cross-reactivity was found to be caused by antibodies directed against two major carbohydrate-containing M. leprae antigens--phenolic glycolipid I and especially lipoarabinomannan, an arabinose-containing lipopolysaccharide which is also present in M. tuberculosis and other mycobacteria. They warned, "ELISA and WB may not be sufficient for HIV diagnosis in AIDS-endemic areas of Central Africa where the prevalence of mycobacterial diseases is quite high" (Kashala et al., 1994).

Kashala, O. Marlink, R. Ilunga, M. Diese, M. Gormus, B. Xu, K. Mukeba, P. Kasongo, K. & Essex, M. 1994 Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabinomannan. Journal of Infectious Diseases 169, 296-304.

It's not clear that Maggiore and her child died of AIDS. I learned about this case a long time ago and, if I remember well, her husband and the coroner pointed out other causes. The most important thing, one isolated case (or two, or three ...) don't prove anything regarding the etiology of AIDS. Maybe she was a drug user, or she practiced anal intercourse.

What it is important is to resort to studies, trying to understand them, and debate about them if necessary. That seems a thing you are trying to avoid.

I think I put this link before, but I put it again:

http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question1.html

How can 99.99% of the world's scientists be wrong?

This apparently disarming question has an apparently disarming answer. Which is "Why not?" The history of science is replete with examples where the majority of scientists have been proven wrong. Especially in medicine. One need look no further than the opposition experienced by William Harvey [1] (circulation of the blood), Ignaz Semmelweiss (antisepsis before the discovery of bacteria), Louis Pasteur (fermentation versus spontaneous generation), James Lind and Gilbert Blane (scurvy is a deficiency disease [2]), Joseph Goldberger (pellagra not an infectious disease) [3].

However on closer examination the question is sophistry. Only a minority of the world's scientists work on HIV or AIDS. Of these most are cloistered in specialist fields where of necessity particular matters of significance are accepted in good faith as fact. For example, scientists working on the "HIV" genome do not question the origin of the DNA molecules they research. Just as laboratory technicians performing antibody tests never question the origin of the proteins in their test kits. And it goes without saying that no protagonist questions the existence of HIV. (The same acceptance in good faith applies to the vast majority of medical practitioners as well as health planners, politicians, patients and relatives. This is not a criticism since no one has time to check up on every facet of every disease that afflicts mankind). When it comes to the question "What is the proof that HIV cause AIDS?" in reality there are only a relatively small number of scientists who would be regarded by all the other scientists in the field as competent to explain and defend the HIV theory. In fact the numbers of such scientists may not be that greatly different from the number who argue there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

These Wikipedia links seem pertinent too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

No, just working out the irony, something the jab junkies can't seem to grasp.

 

LoL, it was the spike proteins that the injections created for you. If you read a lot, you to can find out these things.

 

Got your PhD from Internet University, I see.
Most of what is on the internet is pure click-bait bull crap.
If you know how to read, then that is obvious.

 

Anyone with a brain can read, can't they? I suppose some can't.
Here's one for you...
If you're wondering, he's the NSW state Premier (AUS). I wonder if he got a PhD from the internet.

Dominic Perrottet: Vaccines do not stop Covid-19 transmission
Dominic Premier has called for an end of Covid-19 vaccine mandates, saying the jab has no impact on transmission.

So now the real big question you've got to ask yourself is, WTF are they good for then?

 

What are they good for?

 

What are they good for?

 

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You'll convince yourself and others who believe the lie.

So you do know how Bill Gates has heavily invested in covid injections, right? Well, take a listen to the first 30 sec.

 

OMG, a graph that is the opposite of what it demonstrates, and to top it off, it came from MSM, and you're telling me I got my PhD from the inter-web? Where does MSM get there's from, Fallacy's 'R' Us?

 

The Gates Boogy-Man argument. What a waste of pixels. Try again.

 

There is only one person in my larger social circle (friends and coworkers and their families as well as my own) who has died from Covid. She was 86, morbidly obese and had an oxygen tank already due to advanced COPD and it was round 1 of the strain, the most deadly. My own frail, 85 year old mom survived it, only to die from something else. The very 1st time I heard of it, Italy was being ravaged by it. The news reported a median death age of 80. Where I am from, people die around 78.5 from everything. I knew then this thing was being hyped for political and monetary reasons. It is real. It was developed in a Chinese lab. But it was never a matter that justified the toxic level response we had to it. Harming children. Locking down. Closing schools. TC writes that better masks worked better than cheap ones. They shouldn't. The mask isn't meant to stop the virus particles themselves, which would swim through the mask quite easily. They were meant to stop moisture (from sneeze and cough) which any mask would do as well as another. Joe Biden himself? When he actually did need to cough, he pulled the mask down. The opposite of what he's supposed to do. Fauci himself had said don't bother. He also said back when his hair was dark that it is silly to get a shot for a bug you already had and now have natural immunity. Yet my boy had to get the shot, even though he already had natural immunity or he would not be able to fly to a close friend's wedding. TC writes that s/he honestly believes the shot helped. Good for TC, but I don't think we're allowed to see the data from the researchers for another 75 years.

 

The "REAL" danger to humanity is that the putatve coronavirus [pseudo genomes] that have been templated out of thin air by the cabal of global megalomaniacs/eugenicists running all governments within the G-20 with their hand-picked puppets. Will now be used as the standard templates to create and inject more of their deadly products into many more hapless recipients who were so easily conned and gulled into believing that "their" handpicked virologists latest invention of imagined viruses are actually real.

That is, virology’s "fictional" genomic inventions are now being so relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political intervention/experimentation to further seduce the scared shitless lemmings to readily accept even more dangerous and highly experimental mRNA and nanolipid bio-technologies, which has now killed and maimed more people than all other so-called vaccines combined over the last 30 years, and we have only just begun counting.


these imagined viruses

 

One massive case of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

And here is the fall back

but but but BILL GATES!!!