Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'virus'.
I noticed we are all made up of a large group of people who have one major issue in common, but maybe other things not totally in common. We are all deeply troubled and angered by the way this virus issue has changed society for far the worse. That is agreed. However, which of these groups do you belong to? (1) The virus is a complete fabrication, used as a pretext to sneak in social control, destroy freedoms and brainwash the masses. (2) The virus genuinely exists but has been blown out of all proportion. Social hysteria has created a convenient opportunity for some to attack our freedoms. (3)The virus is an occult phenomenon. There may be an unknown force controlling those in power, such as of extraterrestrial origen. (4) The virus is a bio-weapons attack launched by a hostile country. Or a bio-weapons project that escaped laboratory conditions and confinement. Just thought it might be interesting to explore this.
The news I got today is that plucky Mrs C (who refused the vaccine) has defeated the "deadly virus". She got diagnosed with it some days ago and almost immediately her co-workers were saying, "Look what happened to her!" Well, yes, she was diagnosed and - by her account - easily recovered. This is a woman with diabetese and very poor health but she laughed off her "killer virus" encounter. Now, the staff are in awe. They genuinely were hoodwinked into the belief the Covid virus spells assured death. And now they witnessed a gutsy, oldish employee shrug it all off as no big a deal. Of course, whatever the virus is, it can affect some people harder just as tree pollen does. However, many deaths must surely be connected to panic and extreme psychosomatic symptoms, spread by fear. This virus is not a sure gate to death, by any stretch of the imagination. Many many cases I view as psychosomatic, fear induced, hysterical reaction, just as we saw in Sri Lanka back in 2007. Or in Europe around the 16th century. Sure, part of it lies in a virus unfamiliar to us but compare the real death stats with heart disease and strokes. So to repeat: No vaccine for me. Not now. Not ever.
In order to understand the covid-19 virus claim, a virus that was never isolated and therefore never proven to exist, it is important to look further back in time. Because the perception of the existence of covid is related to the belief system of other diseases that are claimed to be caused by a virus. Let's investigate these claims further with an open and objective mind. In our world it is common that an assumption is made when it comes to a virus/disease and that this assumption which is nothing more then a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without any proof, is mostly accepted. Which is exactly what is happening with 'covid' and 'HIV'. We also call this: The illusory truth effect. This effect is the tendency to believe false information to be correct after repeated exposure. In order words: if you create a lie and keep repeating it, eventually people will believe it, even if there is proof that destroys these claims. In this reality, facts and evidence don't matter but it's important to look at evidence, not assumptions. If a claim is made that a virus exist and that it causes a terrible disease, and it is repeated over and over again, most people accept this assumption without seeing any single evidence or even doing a throughout investigation. As the world is up side down and people are being injected with gene therapy which they call 'vaccinations', important questions remain and need an anwser. We are already busy with a 'solution' for a 'problem' with no single evidence. All based on assumptions. But the question remains; Is this so claimed 'coronavirus' ever isolated? And is this isolation done through Koch's postulates? (Koch postulates are four criteria designed to establish a causative (a factor) relationship between a microbe and a disease) We know now that this so called 'coronavirus' was never isolated and never been through the four critiria of Koch's postulates. There are no papers and not one single documentation on this planet that proves this 'coronavirus' was ever isolated. Obiviously I asked this to the RIVM (The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) recently and I still have to wait for an answer, but I already know this 'virus' was never was never isolated and therefore it doesn't exist. If this claimed 'virus' doesn't exist and was never isolated, then how can you be tested for a this 'virus'? How can you be 'vaccinated' for a virus that doesn't exist? You can't! The real reason for the 'virus' claim and these gene therapies I discussed in an other topic about Covid-19 and the New World Order and their true goals. We are now investigating the 'HIV virus' and the claim that it would develop in a disease without a cure: AIDS. Which is a disease that can be supressed with medication but can even be deadly. Certainly in the past. Both 'coronavirus' and the 'HIV virus' have some similarities to each other: both 'virus'/disease' where not there before and suddenly everywhere. Both 'virus'/disease' where claimed to be dangerous and deadly and both 'virus'/disease' where tested with the PCR test. The test that cannot detect a virus. If covid-19 doesn't exist, then what about HIV and AIDS? Is it possible that we are being lied to and that the HIV virus (Human Immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immunodefiency syndrome) doesn't exist and isn't the cause for AIDS? So we are going back to the 80's and investigate if the 'HIV virus' exists, if it was ever isolated and if it is the cause for a dis-ease called: AIDS. For my research I devour alternative information as the mainstream information doesn't give any context at all. Governments, politicians and mainstream media, seem to ignore the isolation of a virus. I read the book: Virus Mania: How The Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion Dollar Profits At Our Expense and a article named: HIV-AIDS, is not a Viral Disease; It is a Metabolic Syndrome. Of course I read more articles and I use common sense, intuition and an open mind. I will quote some of the book and the article to dive further into the claim: 'HIV causes AIDS' and I will attach the article below. AIDS: From Spare Tire to Multibillion-Dollar Business "If there is proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document. "Kary Mullis Nobel Prize for Chemistry and the inventor of the PCR test in 1993. Whoever experienced the 1980's will still clearly remember: The AIDS panic picked up so quickly that there was no time for a survey of the facts. The mediastimulated fear of viruses had left behind severe "traces in society". In 1984, Der Spiegel, media from Germany, announced that, by the middle of the 1990's, the last German would become ill from AIDS, dying from it two years later (in other words: by the mid- 1990's, AIDS would wipe out the entire German population). The magazine Bild der Wissenschaft, made the same deadly predictions the following year (1985). In comparison, a 1986 forecast in US magazine Newsweek sounded moderate: by 1991, five to 10 million Americans would be infected by HIV. In reality, yearly, no more than a few hundred Germans die from AIDS. Moreover, these people actually die from traditional diseases (like lymphatic cancer or tuberculosis), which are then redefined as AIDS. As for Newsweek's visions of horror: its prognosis was around ten times the 750,000 HIV cases identified by US authorities. 750,000 is actually a cumulative number, since AIDS cases aren't tracked yearly, meaning that number represents the total numbers since official AIDS records were started in the early 1980's. Obviously, with such a method of measurement, the figures appear many times scarier than they actually are. (The same tools to induce extreme fear and trauma used with the 'covid' hoax) Have you ever heard the evening news give the number of traffic accident deaths since the beginning of statistical records (and not just ' the deaths for a given year'?) Certainly not. Strangely, the Robert Koch Institute even admits that they proceeded this way: "To catch the public's attention and encourage a political readiness to act, large numbers were naturally more suitable. Anyone who impartially dives into the topic of HN I AIDS, perpetually trips over such oddities, inconsistencies and contradictions-and searches in vain for scientific proof of the theory's basic hypotheses: that a virus called HIV, causes AIDS. But what is AIDS? What is AIDS? Even the definition of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is anything but coherent. In contrast to other diseases, there is no universal definition of AIDS that could be used as a basis for sound statistics. the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the "Bangui Definition" in 1986, with which many patients have been diagnosed with AIDS. According to this definition, anyone suffering from a few common and non-specific symptoms, like weight loss plus diarrhea and itching, is declared an AIDS patient (without blood tests, and thereby without HIV antibody tests) This type of definition is misleading-it is circular, since it is based on dubious, doubtful, unproven assumptions that HIV exists; that HIV can cause AIDS; that a positive antibody test proves the existence of HIV. We don't know what AIDS is because there is no proof of the HIV Virus. If there is no proof of a virus then how do we know that HIV causes AIDS? We don't know! Where Is the Proof of HIV? This HIV is said to belong to a certain class of viruses called retroviruses. In order to prove, then, that HIV is a specific retrovirus, it would first be necessary to have HIV as a pure isolated virus available, so that it can be imaged in a purified form with an electron microscope. But all electron micrographs of so-called HIV taken from the mid-80's on, come, not from a patient's blood, but from "souped-up" cell cultures. In some cases the cells have been cooked up for a week in a lab Petri dish. So-called AIDS experts didn't even try to make scientific sense of their co-culturing techniques until 1997, when Hans Gelderblom, of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, took a stab at it. But Gelderblom's article, published in the magazine Virology, leaves out the purification, isolation and characterization of a virus, which does not prove that the particles are HIV. The second image of patient's blood came from the American National Cancer Institute. But the particles made visible (proteins, RNA particles) did not have morphology typical of retroviruses (let alone of a specific retrovirus). Additionally, proteins like p24 and p18, which, according to the opinions of mainstream AIDS researchers, are supposed to be specific to HIV, and are also used as HIV markers (surrogate markers), were also found in a number of so-called "uninfected" human tissue samples. If even retrovirus-like particles cannot be recognized in these electron micrographs (let alone particles that match a retrovirus or a very particular retrovirus), this must logically mean that HIV-allegedly, a very specific retrovirus-cannot be detected. "Indeed, HIV has never been detected in a purified form," according to many renowned experts. There is no evidence that supports the claim that the HIV virus even exists. HIV = AIDS? Is HIV the cause of AIDS? Let's allow the medical establishment speak for itself. Reinhard Kurth, director of the Robert Koch Institute (one of the pillars of mainstream AIDS research), conceded in Der Spiegel (9 September, 2004): "We don't exactly know how HIV causes disease. In the 1996 documentary AIDS-The Doubt, by French journalist Djamel Tahi, Montagnier admitted to the same, saying, "there is no scientific proof that HIV causes AIDS. 12 years before, in 1984, Montagnier emphasized that, "The only way to prove that HIV causes AIDS is to show this on an animal model." But there is still no such model. Kary Mullis (who invented the PCR test) said once in an interview about HIV/AIDS ''I'm not a lifeguard, I'm a scientist. And I get up and say exactly what I think. I'm not going to change the facts around because I believe in something and feel like manipulating somebody's behavior by stretching what I really know. I think it's always the right thing and the safe thing for a scientist to speak one's mind from the facts. If you can't figure out why you believe something, then you'd better make it clear that you're speaking as a religious person. People keep asking me, 'You mean you don't believe that HIV causes AIDS?' And I say, 'Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it!' I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn't stand up in front of scientists and say, 'I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.' I'd say, 'I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others. It's not what somebody believes, it's experimental proof that counts. And those guys [from AIDS orthodoxy] don't have that proof." HIV Antibody Tests, PCR Viral Load Tests, CD4 Counts: As Uninformative as a Toss of a Coin The most significant diagnostic tools of viral and AIDS medicine are: 1. Antibody tests (HIV tests) 2. PCR viral load tests 3. Helper cell counts (T-cells, or rather the T-cell subgroup CD4) These are what is known as surrogate markers: alternative methods which doctors determine, on the basis of laboratory data, if someone is infected with HIV or not, and whether they have AIDS. Instead of using traditional methods for investigating whether real disease symptoms (so-called clinical endpoints) have occurred, AIDS doctors look at whether the number of CD4 cells has decreased within a certain time period; if so, the risk of contracting AIDS is said to be low. But as previously mentioned, the results given by these methods are highly dubious ways to detect viruses like HIV, the SARS coronavirus, or the avian flu virus HSN1 and their pathogenic effects. Often enough, surrogate markers have led to misdiagnosis. the HIV antibody tests. They're based on an antigen-antibody theory, which assumes the immune system fights against these antigens (proteins from HIV), as they are called, which are seen by the body as foreign. Their detection triggers an immune reaction, or response, which in turn induces the formation of specifically targeted antibodies. Now, since these so-called HIV antibody tests only prove the existence of antibodies (and not, it is worth noting, the antigen directly, which in this case would be parts of HIV), we have to assume that HIV must have been detected during the validation of the tests. Only then could one use the antigen to calibrate the antibody tests for this particular (HIV) antigen. That is, only in this way can one test whether HIV antibodies are present or not, and, if HIV has not been proven to exist, the tests cannot possibly be known definitively to react to it. Even Reinhard Kurth, director of the Robert Koch Institute made a sobering comment in the Spiegel in 2004: "To tell the truth, we really don't know exactly what has to happen in a vaccine so that it protects from AIDS." Viral load measurements with the help of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, are just as dubious and ultimately meaningless. As long as HIV has not been proven to exist, these tests cannot be calibrated for HIV-and they cannot be used to measure "HIV viral load." Very fine traces of genes (DNA, RNA) may be detected, but whether they come from a (certain) virus, or from some other contamination, remains unclear. The same controversy plagues the tests that count CD4 helper cells. Not a single study confirms the most important principle of the HIV = AIDS theory: that HIV destroys CD4 cells by means of an infection. And without a virus, you cannot possibly know what causes AIDS. It is based on an assumption, not facts. Just as with the coronavirus. CD4 count in the HIV setting is as unformative as "a toss of a coin". Drugs, Medicines and Malnutrition Lead to AIDS There is much evidence that AIDS can substantially be explained by the intake of poisonous drugs and medications (antivirals, antibiotics, etc.) and by malnutrition. Around 80% of all children declared to be AIDS patients are born to mothers who have taken intravenous drugs that destroy the immune system. And the first people to be diagnosed as AIDS patients in the USA were all consumers of drugs like poppers, cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, or amphetamines, all of which have devastating effects on the immune system. These AIDS patients immune systems are severly weakened. This makes it obvious that there is no need for HIV to explain AIDS. Correspondingly, the typical sufferer who is tagged as an "AIDS patient" suffers from malnutrition; particularly those affected in poor countries, but also many drug users who constitute the bulk of AIDS patients in wealthy countries. At the same time, studies show that a stress factor like drugs can trigger a new arrangement of genetic sequences (DNA) in the cells, whereby cell particles are formed-particles produced (endogenously) by the cells themselves (and interpreted by the mainstream medical industry as 'viruses invading from the outside', making this assumption without any proof. The gay communities active rol in the AIDS war Based at least in part on these skewed stats, the gay community certainly became active in the AIDS war and some became powerful gatekeepers of the AIDS establishment. Gay men, some of them affluent and relatively privileged, found their way into private doctors offices and prominent teaching hospitals-and from there into the pages of medical journals [and from there into the mass media]-while drug users often sickened and died with little fanfare. And many reports in medical journals were penned by doctors who were very close to the gay scene and for that reason had treated many AIDS patients. The focus on homosexuals was so strong that, at the beginning AIDS was even called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome (GRID). Or simply, "gay disease". Primarily because clinicians, epidemiologists, and reporters perceived the syndrome through that filter of the 'gay men's health crisis'. While in fact, there is no proof for it all. AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease, it is a disease that weakens the immunsystem due to toxic, heavy medication, hard drugs and bad nutrition. If nothing is done to strengthen the immunsystem, then even a minor infection such as a cold can be much more severe. This is because the body has difficulty responding to new infections. People with AIDS can die because their immunsystem is already weakend and if given heavy medications, the body can not process these heavy medications and the body wil stop working. This doesn't have to be the case, it depends on the medication that is given. So the 'HIV virus', just as this 'coronavirus' strain (covid-19) has never been isolated en therefore not proven to exist. You can understand why big pharmaceutical companies make billions out of sick people and keep forcing the population to keep taking medication and vaccines that can be toxic and dangerous. And that the reason for 'vaccinating' people for covid-19 has a completely different reason that has nothing with a virus. Below is the article I mentioned. It is a medical nutritionist from India who wrote it. It describes why HIV-AIDS, is not a viral disease; but a metabolic syndrome. It describes what is written in the book: 'Virus Mania' in addition with other interesting information: https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/hivaids-is-not-a-viral-disease-it-is-a-metabolic-syndrome-2167-0943-1000239.pdf
Heard today my brother's neighbour suffered a stroke 3 weeks after receiving her vaccine. Although nobody can prove a connection, the woman herself blames the vaccine. One other neighbour - a Jehova's witness - was shocked and "possibly" more likely not to vaccinate. There is more: On sharing this news today, one lady in a shop got upset with me and stormed off. "I'm sick of this conspiracy crap!" she yelled. What should be our attitude to those who follow official guidelines, often in the hope of future holidays? I think maybe the majority of us make mistakes. The psychology term here is "ambivalence" and was used to describe the schizophrenic thought process. This is where desire is split into two opposing opposites. The first desire may be to not have the vaccine. The second desire is to have the vaccine - the motive being this is justified by the ability to live a normal life. To justify this motive, the person reacts strongly against contrasting evidence. Put in simple terms self delusion. To refuse the vaccine requires acceptance of the fact we live in an unethical and corrupt society. That in turn requires resistance. It is much easier to delude yourself you actually want the vaccine. That nobody is forcing it. Everbody is having it. And yet, we know the truth is the ability to have any freedom at all depends upon set conditions. Governments claim they have the right to decide risk factors regarding medication and vaccines. Neither are these people scientifically literate. My own attitude is I feel sorry for the lady who suffered a stroke. If it was indeed connected. Now she has deep regrets yet there was nothing anyone could do.