**Comment**

I highly, highly recommend the following article for those of you who have been following the viral theory issue.  While admittedly confusing, it’s important to glean information to be able to make informed decisions. There is disagreement even among experts on the topic. The following article does a fantastic job explaining the nuances between experts.

https://www.activistpost.com/2022/03/the-no-virus-theory-is-based-on-hiv.html

The “No Virus” Theory Is Based on HIV

Op-Ed by Julie Beal

When Stefan Lanka came up with the no-virus theory, it seems he based it all on HIV and AIDS. It’s like he tried to generalize from one virus to all viruses, using other people’s theories. Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman have popularized Lanka’s ideas and have recently suggested that criticisms about the isolation of HIV can be applied to all viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. This is highly misleading, because if anyone decides to look up some of these criticisms, they’ll sound like the stuff the no-virus theorists say, as if it’s some kind of validation, or proof that viruses don’t exist at all. But the scientists who criticised the discovery of HIV were making very specific points about one virus only – they didn’t suggest it applied to other viruses, and none of them said viruses aren’t real. Only Stefan Lanka said that. The whole thing started in 1998 when he revealed his idea:

I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses — as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous — in fact do not exist at all.”

Generalizing from the one to the many is entirely illogical, and it’s highly misleading to make unverified claims, especially now.[i] As the following table shows, twisting the words and meanings of the original theorists is a crass misrepresentation of their work.  (See link for article)

___________________

SUMMARY:

  • Using a nifty table, the author delineates the differences between the HIV-AIDS critics vs Stefan Lanka. (and there are numerous differences)
  • While Lanka agrees with the Perth Group that HIV had never been isolated and purified correctly and that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, the Perth group believes AIDS is real, but theorize it’s caused by cellular redox (an imbalance between oxidants and antioxidants can cause disease like cancer and/or AIDS).  They also highlight the toxic effects of AZT.
  • In the late 1990’s, there was a row between Peter Duesberg, considered the most famous AIDS dissident, who stated that HIV is a real, albeit harmless harmless vs the Perth Group that denies the existence of HIV  Duesberg states the Perth Group were “claiming way above what the standards are for identification of a virus or microbe, as the cause of a disease.”
  • Far ahead of his time Duesberg stated:  “… vast numbers of harmless microbes exist in the world … even potentially pathogenic bacteria only cause life-threatening disease in those whose immune systems are temporarily or chronically impaired. … We coexist with a sea of microbes and benefit from many, including those that naturally reside in the human body.”
  • Kary Mullis, PCR inventor, also disputed HIV as the cause of AIDS and states there is no document proving it does.  He also states, “anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough….with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody….it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.” He also emphasized that PCR should never be used to diagnose disease because it can not identify whole (infectious) viruses.
  • Both Etienne de Harven (influential scientist in the AIDS dissident movement) and Duesberg emphasized the role Big Pharma plays in science, and described virologists as “fanatical virus hunters,” and that the study of HIV/AIDS is an “impure science.”
  • AIDS dissidents warned and prepared us for the series of spurious outbreaks that have occurred in the last 20 years.  They, and investigative journalists like Jon Rappoport repeatedly warn that viruses can be used for political theatre and Big Pharma profits, with a complicit media doing their bidding.
  • The author states that the “lure of the no-virus theory is that it seems to explain not only the ronascam, but also the other over-hyped outbreaks, such as SARS, MERS and swine flu. It provides a quick and easy way to criticize both vaccines and virology, and empowers people to ‘prove it for themselves.’” 
  • She further states, “The no-virus theory is a lazy, badly-researched idea that’s full of misunderstandings, and it stymies the anti-covidian movement by closing down debate, preventing research, and giving us a bad name.”
  • Mutant viruses are nothing new. First discovered in the early 1900s, scientists have been mutating them by passaging them through animals and humans, creating unnatural altered versions which might mess with our microbes when used in “vaccines”, thereby damaging our immunity. These mutants can then escape from a lab anytime.

For more:

%d bloggers like this: