43 Comments
Feb 26Liked by Rebecca Culshaw Smith

So glad we are talking about this. Your comments and those that follow you are such critical thinkers. Such a shame that we have had numerous decades of coverups and suppression of a real exchange of ideas on how to combat this and many other bioweapons created by Fauci, DARPA, etc. in our Universities and Fort Detrick.

Expand full comment
Feb 26Liked by Rebecca Culshaw Smith

Sorry for all the rapid fire comments, I'm commenting as I'm reading through the article.

Regarding hypergammaglobulinemia, this is such an important point. What the PG point out is that the 'HIV' antibody tests are *assumed* to be more accurate in the risk groups to which they're plied most often, but in fact they would be LESS likely to be accurate, and MORE likely to be non-specifically reactive, given the HGG. Even if you assume they react to antibodies generated in response to 'HIV', the evidence that they also react in the presence of HGG basically invalidates their use given the lack of proper gold standard. But once you realize that 'HIV' is an epiphenomena (laboratory artifacts), then the 'HIV' tests are just non-specific in nature. But like the thermometer which is also totally non-specific, it still reacts in the presence of unhealthy things going on in the body and thus is clinically useful. There's a lot of disagreement in dissident circles as to whether a positive antibody test is meaningful or not in this sense.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you Christoph. I’ll be far more detailed in the second installment.

Expand full comment

That's ok. It dawns on me that the other place we see this '99%' value (PrEP being the other) is with the antibody tests. I remember hearing that years ago, how extremely accurate they are, in fact in House of Numbers Gallo even says in the world of diagnostics the HIV antibody tests are some of the better tests, LOL. The entire HIV/AIDS edifice rests on this '99%' thing.

Expand full comment
author

Yes they do love to throw that figure around, don’t they?

Expand full comment
Feb 26Liked by Rebecca Culshaw Smith

Oh, and another thing about CD4 cell counts. Yes, the technology for measuring them was developed coincidentally when proto-AIDS appeared, but the PG also again make an astute observation about these immune cells. It turns out the surface cell markers can change, so the cells take on other functions and essentially no longer are CD4 cells. They're not dying, they're just changing such that they're no longer being measured.

Expand full comment
author

Yup. I actually wrote a paper about that phenomenon for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I should dig that up and republish it here, along with a critique of it written by the AIDSTRUTH gang.

Expand full comment
Feb 26·edited Feb 26

I meant T-Cell, not C-Cell. CD4...I see you figured it out! LOL Thanks you!!!

Expand full comment

I hadn’t thought of this before, but what to make of someone like Magic Johnson? Is anything actually physically wrong with him? Does he actually have “HIV?” Does he believe he has “HIV”? Is his entire affair an “op” to sell pharmaceuticals? Does he actually take any of the AIDS drugs he promotes? Or does he know nothing is wrong with him and get paid handsomely to lie? Thoughts on that?

Expand full comment
author

I have no idea what is going on with him but there are many theories.

Expand full comment

Really? What are some of the theories? I didn't even know people doubted that he had "HIV." In retrospect, I don't know why I hadn't doubted this before recently. It's "COVID" that is making question everything in relationship to virus theory and pharmaceuticals.

Expand full comment
author

Oh there have been theories floating around that he doesn’t really test positive, or (from the fringes of the mainstream) that he was on the “down low” or whatever. We will never know, probably.

Expand full comment

Got it. Thanks.

Expand full comment

Did you see that South Park episode? He drinks legal tender smoothies for healthing up that immune system.

Expand full comment

Ok, last comment. The question about herpes, for anyone curious about a deep dive into the history of herpes should check out the presentation by Dr. Sam Bailey.

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-We-Weren't-Taught-About-Herpes:3

Expand full comment

Regarding Steven's question about what's causing the 'HIV' antibody tests to become positive if not for 'HIV' itself.

Here again the Perth Group have gone to extensive lengths to answer these questions. They document that antibodies directed against a 'carbohydrate moiety' of various organisms like candida albicans, TB, and antibodies in leprosy cross react onto the 'HIV' tests.

Expand full comment

If a "test" gives too many false positives then it's not very much of a test. Why build any kind argument on such questionable source of data?

Expand full comment

It's because the system assumes they're correct, 'true positives'.

Expand full comment

Wow. There I was assuming that you were aware of the whole virus fraud.

Mea culpa.

For HIV/AIDS check out the Perth Group.

For measles and virology generally check out Stefan Lanka.

For an excellent education on the fraud of virology, immunology, epidemiology, etc., check Mark Bailey's Farewell to virology.

And of course, Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman, Dawn Lester and David Parker, Claus Kohnlein and so on.

Christine Massey's work with FOI's and the complete lack of any evidence of a virus, anywhere.

There really is a lot of information showing the fraud

Expand full comment
author

Also please pay careful attention to my wording.

Expand full comment
author

I’m aware of it, but I’m sticking to HIV. To quote a wise man, one virus is enough for a lifetime.

Expand full comment

My hobby these days is to try to disprove my new belief in our glorious new cult of no-virusism. I'm almost a two year-old convert and I entered the cult kicking and screaming. I really wanted to believe in viral infections and immune systems.

In fact, I don't do anything but kicking and screaming now, specially when we meet in the big Pagoda with our special white garments, and we get updates on how the reparation of the space pods to return to the mother ship is going. I think it's too damn expensive using solar, we should use nuclear energy instead.

It's funny to see doctors regurgitating what they were told in their genetics online course. They seem to argue that it is all true because they paid handsome dollars for the pdfs they had to read. Probably I misunderstand their argument.

Thank God, I known nothing about anything, and I get blessed with growing ignorance each day. But comedy seems to be loved by almost everyone. They open up a little.

Expand full comment
Feb 26·edited Feb 26

The PCR and how they conduct the PCR is the cause of the most false positives! https://www.bitchute.com/video/5EAWnkwUuJWJ/

Expand full comment
author

That’s true for viral load, but the antibody tests involve a different technology. No viral particles are involved, at least partly because they’re almost impossible to find even in AIDS patients.

Expand full comment

I went to the doc recently for another issue, they drew blood and of coarse they said my viral load is high... said my "T-cells" were only "75"... they say "under 200" is "aids"... I'm not "that" unhealthy. Threatened me with "Opportunistic infections" if I didn't take the cocktail, and antibiotics. Definitely a spell he cast (unknowingly?)... My motivation for gathering more information around this topic. thanks for your help!

Expand full comment

Free!?!? Architects and engineers will get anxiety now by thinking about the profits. If the cost is zero, all the profits multiply by a factor, of... uh... zero!

So in that world, one billion profits times zero cost is like... one trillion profit for each architect and engineer involved in the grift. I used my old trusty casio fx83-gtx calculator for that computation, just so you know.

It would be a nice project, though. The South African whites could go walking to the US to find safety, and the Mexicans could move in the other direction to bring ruin to South Africa. It's all upside!

Expand full comment
author
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Author

That’s how logic works. I could have also just as accurately stated that it will cost a google dollars. I didn’t make the rules, but they’re pretty cool.

Expand full comment

Regarding Gegory's question, "what other processes are goofy?", the 'HIV' antibody tests for one. Once you do a deep dive into them everything about the HIV theory of AIDS falls apart. However, some other notable but less known diagnostic things around AIDS. The Perth Group point out that one of the signature illnesses originally associated with AIDS, PCP pneumonia, is a presumptive diagnosis. It's assumed that if an AIDS patient gets pneumonia, it's likely PCP and therefore PCP indicates HIV and AIDS. However, they point out that the diagnosis for this is actually quite difficult and often unable to differentiate between various kinds of pneumonia. I'll have to look up where they talk about this, but it was fascinating.

Expand full comment

Yes, that is what I did.

Discussing fraudulent science claims as though they have some validity, only helps to perpetuate said fraud.

How much easier it is to state flat out "there is no evidence of any virus anywhere and your illness has some other cause"

Expand full comment
author

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it is far more powerful to disprove HIV AIDS from within the framework of classical virology (even if the field itself is suspect) than it is to do it from outside of that framework, especially when it comes to getting the attention of the public. I cover AIDS; there are plenty of other people tackling virology, and I know when to stay in my lane.

Expand full comment

I think that is a nonsense answer. It isn't possible to 'disprove' something from within when the very 'framework' is utterly fraudulent. How can you or anyone 'cover AIDS' when the very concept of HIV/AIDS is fraudulent. There is nothing to cover. Ditto for 'tackling virology', there is no 'virology' as it has been completely exposed as non-science, right back to its beginnings. 'Staying in your lane' is at best cowardice and likely indicative of a lack of honesty and principle.

I am rather disappointed that you are perpetuating these frauds and thereby assisting in the entire murderous industry of the Pharma conglomerates.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Author

As far as “covering AIDS,” is there any other writer you can think of that is doing such a thorough evisceration of these drugs that are being given to millions for a lifetime? More than half of the material on this site involves harshly criticizing the toxic drugs being shilled by Pharma; do you really think the average person who might want to take PrEP would be more swayed by the information about toxicities or worse, the creepy surveillance involved in digital pill systems and the like, or by me saying “oh don’t worry viruses don’t exist”? If you think it’s the latter, you don’t understand whom you’re dealing with.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Author

By “whom” I mean those caught in the AIDStrix. (Accidentally double posted, hence the disappearing comment.)

Expand full comment
author
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Author

Have you ever heard of proof by contradiction? And WHY are you so insistent on getting me to publicly promote something that I have yet to make a statement on? I have very considered reasons for my approach. Rest assured that I do follow this stuff and I am well aware of the arguments; I’ve known of Lanka since 2005 and respect him a lot as I do the Baileys. I will NEVER make a public statement on the level of what I say about the HIV AIDS story about ANYTHING I am not TOTALLY convinced of/have yet to come to a final decision that I am truly comfortable with. That would be intellectual dishonesty on the highest level and, to be frank, the number of comments that come close to bullying me to “just admit that no virus exists!” is honestly a little weird. It undermines the credibility of the argument that is attempting to be made, and comes off a bit like the aggressive tactic of AIDS activists - no questions allowed.

Expand full comment

What is really impossible is to get to see con-men ever admitting to their crimes.

Liars must reject all arguments, all paradigms, all data, even logic itself. All scientific fraudsters are polylogists. There has to be a virus or we are all dead. That's the rules.

Expand full comment
author
Feb 26·edited Feb 26Author

Oh they never will. They would die first. I’m convinced of that. I’m also convinced that some of them have thoroughly convinced THEMSELVES that they are not only right but good, which is even scarier.

Expand full comment

whatever happened to the info

that some people who took the "covid" jab, later tested HIV positive, however had no sexual contact or other risk factors to indicate HIV exposure?

Expand full comment
author

This was just a preliminary report as far as I could tell, but it’s interesting because it adds to the list of conditions that cause positive results on these tests.

Expand full comment
author

Also it wasn’t the jab, it was Covid itself as “verified” by PCR, OF COURSE. Although I bet the jabs increased false positive rates since many jabs do.

Expand full comment