Do I think HIV exists?

An explanation and a clarification

I received an interesting comment from a reader on my most recent post. The part I would like to address is the following:

I get the feeling you believe HIV exists yet I haven't got any idea (perhaps is clear in other articles of yours?) for what reason (s) you would think that way. Because if your research over all the years is giving you conviction HIV is just imaginary, why harp on about aspects of the HIV industry....when it is ALL nefarious intent...just malfeasance writ large.....and the root of the false edifice propogated in our minds has to be expunged fully, the complete structure of the HIV/AIDs horror show mechanism still being invented has to be dismantled and obliterated.

I would like to address the question of why I am continuing to cover “aspects of the HIV industry”; as well as to explain a little bit about my beliefs regarding the HIV AIDS story, including the “existence” question.

“Why harp on about aspects of the HIV industry?” One of my goals in covering the Truvada disaster and the many problems with PrEP is to make it very clear that the mainstream media is LYING about the very tenets of the HIV AIDS story being used to keep it afloat. There are no clinical trial data supporting “>99% efficacy” for PrEP. Regarding “U=U” (undetectable = untransmissible) even Fauci admits there is a lack of clinical trial data to support U=U. Yet these two statements are repeated over and over as though repeating a lie many times makes it true. These statements are repeated constantly and they are basically the only thing the general public ever hears about AIDS—we have these great drugs, everything is under control, trust us. I intend to continually remind people that this story is a fairy tale, and that there is ample evidence that the drugs don’t work. Indeed, as the Truvada disaster indicates, they do the opposite of “work.”

What I would like to accomplish is to make it clear that we are being deceived as to the efficacy and side effect profiles of these medications, and that—and here is the subtlety, I think—even within the framework of the paradigm, it is provable that we are being lied to. Since the vast majority of the public is operating under the assumption that the paradigm is correct, it is important to sow these seeds of doubt from within the framework of the paradigm. As I have mentioned before, questioning HIV AIDS is the third rail for many; for those people, I think it is critical to present the failures of the paradigm from within the framework of the paradigm itself. I repeated that three times for a reason.

Moving on. Let me address the “existence” question. From where I stand, there are two statements, that do not necessarily contradict one another, but that are often confused:

1) HIV does not exist.

2) What we think of as HIV is a case of mistaken identity. There is something there and that something is very real. We need to clarify what it is. 

It is very tricky to make a blanket statement such as “HIV does not exist.” As far as I know, even the Perth Group didn’t say that; they said, and I paraphrase: “HIV has not been proven to exist and it has not been isolated as an exogenous retrovirus.” That is NOT the same as saying “HIV does not exist.” The first statement—“HIV does not exist”— is necessarily unprovable; the best you can do is to provide a preponderance of evidence, from here until infinity, which the Perth Group has done brilliantly, and which is vitally important. It is also dangerous because many people hear this and immediately translate it to mean “AIDS does not exist” ( since the circular “relationship” between HIV antibody positivity and AIDS has so effectively brainwashed almost everyone) and then the charges of “denialism” are leveled, and the game is over. I think that the second statement—that what we think of as “HIV” is a case of mistaken identity—is a more accurate reflection of reality, and it also implies the continued investigation into what, exactly is happening in AIDS, in a way that simply saying “HIV does not exist” does not. What is being detected that is being mistaken for “HIV”?

I’ll refer the reader back to the work of Etienne de Harven, but to summarize, it is highly probable that what is being mistaken for “HIV” and its genetic material in culture are endogenous retroviral particles—the human genome is composed of anywhere from 5-8% endogenous retroviral fragments, and those of you following the Covid story are probably also aware that extracellular vesicles or exosomes (a sub population of extracellular vesicles) can often be mistaken for viruses. Look, even Bob Gallo admits this:

Extracellular vesicles and viruses: Are they close relatives? (pnas.org)

Given that no two identical “HIV” particles have ever been found even in a single AIDS patient, it seems highly unlikely that what we call “HIV” is an exogenous virus at all. There is a significant likelihood that the portions of HIV associated genetic material being detected are in fact endogenous retroviral fragments, being produced at a higher rate than normal when an individual is under stress (either from an environmental, psychological, or infectious cause). This would also explain why positive “viral loads” have not infrequently been found in HIV antibody negative individuals.

Also, in an interesting twist, there is in fact an AIDS-associated endogenous retrovirus, HERV-K18, that acts like a superantigen, wreaking havoc on the immune system. The envelope protein of HERV-K18 encodes a superantigen that has been shown to strongly stimulate a large number of T cells, causing immune dysregulation. From a paper in the Journal of Clinical Virology (2009), “HHV-6A infection induces expression of HERV-K18-encoded superantigen”:

Background: The human endogenous retrovirus K-18 (HERV-K18) encodes a superantigen that causes deregulation of the immune system. This provirus is transcriptionally silent, but can be induced by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection and IFN-alpha treatment.

Objectives: Since the herpesvirus EBV induces HERV-K18 expression in human B cells, it was of interest to determine if other herpesviruses would have similar HERV-K18 transactivation properties. Human herpesvirus (HHV)-6A, a neurotropic virus associated with multiple sclerosis, was a logical candidate for these studies.

There is quite a lot of information regarding HERV-K18 available online, but if this (or even another) endogenous retrovirus is involved in the development of AIDS—both “HIV AIDS” and non-HIV AIDS—this certainly is worthy of significant research funding.

While HIV may not be real, AIDS certainly is. But AIDS will never be solved if we continue to chase after the red herring of HIV, whose role in AIDS has long since been nullified. I would go even further and argue that debating the existence of “HIV” is also something of a red herring and, quite frankly, alienates a lot of people who would otherwise be open to this information. Endless debates over HIV’s existence also have a kind of Groundhog Day effect; this discussion is not new and, while it is important, the past forty years also indicate that it is not enough to get ourselves out of this mess. Yes, on a philosophical level, it matters whether “HIV” “exists”, but when it comes to actually solving AIDS and helping the patients that have been harmed by the HIV AIDS story, it is more important to focus on the coverups of the harms of the pharmaceutical treatments by both the media and AIDS activists themselves, as well as to exploring other possibilities as to what is really going on in the bodies of AIDS patients. And that’s where I stand on this issue.

*******************

In The Real AIDS Epidemic, I present an analysis of data that falsify the HIV/AIDS hypothesis and warn about the toxic drugs being given to people in the name of that falsified HIV/AIDS hypothesis. In the afterword, I offer constructive suggestions for a paradigm shift in AIDS research and treatment that emphasize the recognition of the massive Non-HIV AIDS epidemic in the general population.

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.