Ask me anything, part 2!

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here.

My apologies for the delay in posting all my replies. There are two questions I have yet to answer, one of which is addressed in this post, and both of which will be answered soon. In the meantime, regular posting will resume this week.

From Dean:

Have you read Stefan Lankas article“The Misconception Called Virus”. Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article,https://www.globalresearch.ca/dr-stefan-lanka-2020-article-busts-virus-misconception/5719146

I have read it, and some of his other papers with interest. I’ve noticed that the notion that no pathogenic or contagious viruses even exist has gained some traction in the past few years, and I maintain a certain level of skepticism regarding this concept. I suspect—and I know I am not the only one—that some people are misunderstanding the Perth Group’s arguments regarding the existence of HIV; retroviruses are rather different than “regular” DNA or RNA viruses, and criteria needed to prove their existence are therefore not necessarily applicable to other viruses. (I am also fully aware of the fact that the vast majority of bacteria and viruses are harmless and even beneficial to humans, but this is not true of all such pathogens. Like fruit, some is poisonous and most is not, and one should exercise great caution around the poisonous ones.)

If I’m wrong, I hope someone will correct me. I will add as a postscript that I am somewhat alarmed by what appears to be the field of virology’s wholesale abandonment of Koch’s postulates. This is cause for concern.

From Sara:

Have you ever come across physicians who share your view? I desperately would like to find someone for my daughter.

I do, although this is not ordinarily something I would ask a provider at a medical appointment. In my ordinary life, however, I have encountered more physicians than you’d imagine that think something isn’t quite right about the HIV story of AIDS. (I think I’m going to stop referring to HIV AIDS as a “theory” any longer and will henceforth refer to it as a “story.”) Any physicians that read here are encouraged to chime in in the comments. As I have stated many times, I cannot give medical advice nor refer you to a physician.

From Amy:

Could you please explain how PCR works? I know it's an amplication process, but the counting copies part is unclear to me. Would you know how many cycles it takes before copies are counted?

This is a great question, but it’s beyond the scope of this post. I will devote an entire post to this very soon.

From X Man:

Does HIV exist, does it causes Aids do you know of any positive people who have never used Arvs for a long period of time longes survivors without ARVs

According to official estimates, close to half of American HIV positive individuals are not taking ARVs, and there is no AIDS crisis resembling that in the 1980s, suggesting that there are many long term survivors. I have also personally heard from many. Regarding the existence of HIV, please refer to The Perth Group’s website. It has a plethora of good information.

From Charles:

In 1991, Gina Kolata et al. published a book entitled “Sex in America.”

The three authors stated forcefully that “there never had been and never would be an outbreak of AIDS cases among heterosexuals or non-psychoactive drug users in America.”

In your opinion, why were they so accurate in their predictions? What seemed to compel them towards that conclusion?

There certainly has not been any explosion of heterosexual HIV AIDS in North America, but has there been an epidemic of non HIV AIDS? The honest answer to this question paints a very different picture of the real AIDS epidemic than has been provided by the legacy media.

I’m not sure what the media coverage in the early days of AIDS was like in the U.S. because I lived in Canada at the time, and Canadian media in general tend to be more understated. I do have a distinct memory of the “general consensus” regarding HIV being that there *had* to be some kind of point of entry into the bloodstream for whatever “infectious agent” was present in bodily fluid, so there was an idea from early on that HIV was extremely difficult to transmit, and that made people feel “safe”. (This makes it even more staggering to imagine that by the time tests were available, fully one million Americans—a figure virtually unchanged today—tested HIV positive for a “new virus” that was “extremely difficult to transmit.” How did that happen so fast?)

From LR:

I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the top suspects for non-hiv aids? I know there is no definite answer at this point but from the several books that I've read, it is suggested that it could be HHV-6A, an HTLV-2 like virus, or a stealth bacterium. Any others that you've heard of? I'm 100% positive that an (easily transmissible) infectious agent is involved.

That is certainly possible, and there are some intriguing candidates including human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6) and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8), also known as Kaposi’s sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV). In fact, Kaposi’s sarcoma may be more relevant to understanding AIDS than we imagine—more to come.

It’s also possible that the cause of AIDS is not infectious. Unfortunately, AIDS itself is so poorly and broadly defined that determining what it even is, let alone what causes it, becomes near impossible. Add to that the fact that the definition of HIV AIDS is circular—you cannot have non HIV AIDS, because a diagnosis of AIDS requires a positive result on an HIV antibody test, which neatly eliminates non HIV AIDS from the public consciousness. It has been declared by fiat to not exist. This is a colossal mistake, and until it is righted, AIDS will remain a beast to unravel.

Thank you to everyone who submitted questions! You can always ask me anything in the comments.