This is true, but I wanted to provide Dr. Duesberg’s perspective, because whether you like him or not, he opened the whole debate on AIDS causation. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he has made a lot of good points. More importantly, he is able to dismantle the paradigm from with the paradigm, which is tremendously important on a philosophical level. That is true falsification.
I was a Duesberg disciple back in the 1990s. He was an important part of my path and awakening.
But I just don't see the reason at this point, highlighting Duesberg IN ERROR, and without disclaimer, critical commentary, or counterpoint.
Here in 2023, it seems to me that you are just using your Substack as a vehicle to spread MISINFORMATION about the existence of HIV, Retroviruses, or viruses in general. Why?
I don's see how showing the fraud of 150 years of "virus isolation" in scientific journals is inconsistent with "dismantling the paradigm from with the paradigm".
I guess we need to agree to disagree. I think for people new to this movement, Duesberg cannot be avoided because he STARTED IT from within the scientific community, and whether you agree with him or not, his contributions are a huge part of the history of all of this. I’m not deleting part of history because he got some stuff wrong.
Perhaps because when someone wholeheartedly and unquestioningly believes something is true because it is all they have ever been unquestioningly taught is true the best and perhaps only way to raise question or dissent to their belief is to approach it as if it were as real as the believer thinks it is then show them the failings.
Just a thought.
Have you ever known a religious fanatic or a cult member?
There is actually a debate between the Perth Group and Duesberg on this point. You have to look past his belief in HIV being a harmless passenger virus to see his contribution to understanding AIDS. His documentation of toxicology is so important.
I also posit that there are misunderstandings about the definition of the word “virus” that contribute to the confusion. Proper definitions are critical to good science.
His explanation of AIDS in hemophiliacs is also extremely well done and convincing. Plus, he managed to falsify HIV AIDS within the paradigm of classical virology. No one gets everything right. (And I say this as someone that aligns more closely with Perth in this non-fight. I don’t think they really contradict one another.)
Agreed. As I mentioned in another comment reply, he was the first to falsify HIV AIDS from within the framework of the paradigm itself, which is true falsification. He may have gotten some things wrong, but he got a lot right.
Back in the late nineties I left a voicemail for Dr Duesberg at the number listed for him on the UC Berkeley registry. Thanked him for his 1086 dissent to the hiv theory that gave me the courage to reject clinic recommendation later that year that I immediately begin AZT. Antibody positive. Told him he was my hero. Came home from work the next night to a voicemail from Duesberg!!
Was listening to it for the third time when the phone rang. It was Dr Duesberg! We talked for close to an hour. He commended me for my understanding of the syndrome and my then ten years of research study. He told me I would be his hero by continuing to share dissent to the hiv theory.
Haven’t shut up about it since. No one will ever convince me that is not why I am banned from twitspace and ignorancegram.
If by “this” you are referring to my comment about being diagnosed hiv antibody positive and encouraged to immediately begin AZT it is NOT from Dr Duesberg’s Inventing The AIDS Virus. I do own a copy of that book. It is my personal experience. I am alive and well 36 years after being told I would be dead in two years unless I began treatment with AZT.
Not my “story” but it has been told even if censored and silenced. Nobody wants to hear it because like you they feel secure being swaddled in a blanket of lies, arrogant ignorance and blind unquestioning faith in religious dogma they do not understand and cannot explain.
It well if that is your story, I saw a similar story on the body I will refer to what page on the book maybe Peter acknowledged you in his book, well that's great!
I'm referring to the extract from the book why would I be stalking you, I've read that piece so I'm just questioning whether the Author to Peter Duesberg how long has he/she maintained such a position? If that appears to stalk you I'm sorry but you also challenge some of my comments I never saw that as stalking
There's no doubt Duesberg was a hero, he helped guys and parents of young children who had been put on AZT to get off it. He knew exactly what that poison was doing to people.
I've read and heard a few times the following sentence: "there are no proofs in Science."
This is the postmodernist way of thinking.
There is no certainty, no data, there is no reality outside of the observer, texts have no meaning (and graphs, and paintings, and an electron microscopy photograph, etc.)
Obviously, this is nonsense.
But they pretend to believe it. Perhaps because it is convenient to get grant money.
And because that sentence is false, there has to be proof of contagious disease. And the no-virus people, who I follow, say there is no evidene to support the claim that disease can be transmitted from one sick person to a healthy person.
Then, the no-virus people (and no germ theory people) make this jump in logic: because there is no evidence, then the theory is false.
This is, in my opinion, half-wrong. A better sentece: because there is no evidence, we better wait until we have it before continuing the research path laid down by that Germ theory of disease. (Which is politically impossible, but who cares)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of falsehood, logically.
But.
There is a majority of doctors and scientists who believe germ theory is true. They all have been taught that it is true. I have asked a few times why it is true. What is the evidence they were given. And they don't mention it, or mention something for which there is a counterargument.
So, it is a theory in tatters.
Not that this constitutes any problem for Political Power at large, or for Financial Power. In the least. They don't need germ theory to be true. They only need the belief.
I'm open to actual evidence. I'm no fanatic. Besides, I only started questioning the virus in 2022, and Germ Theory this year. I confess that I've lived all my life (39 years) believing that infectious disease is real without any evidence or valid logical argument for it. Most people won't ever admit to that, and I don't know why. It's so liberating to admit the truth. It's the true path for learning.
How did the no virus people you follow convinced you there's no contagion against the world with over 30 millions of people living with HIV, be it today World Aids day
I started listening and reading to the no-virus researchers and writers in 2022. I was very skeptical. I fought against their arguments. I was sure that there was proof of the general idea of contagious disease by means of microbes (bacteria, fungi, viruses, perhaps other things like protozoa and even haptenes, if they can be considered microbes.) But I saw no evidence. All evidence was fallacious. It is amazing: the very papers designed to proof contagiousness, like the Rosenau studies on the so called Spanish Flu, actually disproved their hypotheses.
(Incidentally, isn't that actually good science?!?!?)
And many other papers did the same.
So I had to reject the idea.
I became convinced that the falsehood of Germ Theory is the best kept secret of Western Medicine. It's 100% about political and economic control of the multitudes.
I've been trying to go back to believing in germ theory, even if only in part. It's difficult. But I'm open to finding any evidence. So far, no luck.
I took me like eight months to overcome my skepticism completely.
But, perhaps the idea that first appears the damage in the tissues, and then microbes appear in order to "heal" (by eating up) the dead and decaying tissue is the correct one. If so, the world is actually upside down compared to what we think it is.
How do the tissues of the body get damaged? Many ways: malnutrition, toxicity of any kind, including mold toxins in the air, impacts (like beating a prisoner with a stick or falling to the floor,) psychological abuse, psychogenic disease, OCD, depression, delusion, anxiety...
Maybe this alternative hypothesis, which is falsifiable too (and scientific, in the limited definition of Popper,) does not explain everything. There may be more things.
My best counterargument is flawed. Imagine this: everyone knows that a white shark can harm a person, and a bull, and a tiger, and a wolf, and a racoon, and a snake, and a poisonous centipede, and even small spiders. See what I'm doing? I'm reducing the size of the animal causing disease or harm. Why couldn't it be the case that smaller life forms, invisible, could also enter our bodies and harm us? Why couldn't it be that they parasitize our bodies and hope to jump to the next person? It's perfectly reasonable, right? But, we need proof. We need evidence that a healthy person gets invaded by an invisible bacteria or virus, and then disease happens, and there is no other explanation than the microbe causing harm. And then we need proof or transmission. But there are no such proofs! That's when my counterargument falls apart.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they cherry-picked the studies to make their debunking of Germ Theory more likely.
What do you think?
Do you have evidence?
By the way, I don't agree with the aggressive behavior in forums and comment sections displayed by some acolytes of this idea of no-virus and no GT. This is no pastime, like talking shit about sports. We have to moderate our passions, and take care to not fall in unwholesome communication.
Oh the germ hypothesis is bankrupt and has been refuted by its own adherents. No evidence of actual isolation of viruses (bacteria exist and are only beneficial) and no evidence of contagion. We would all be much better off leaving that fraud in the pseudoscientific dumpster it came from.
Yes pneumonia like TB the bacteria is identified from the sputum or blood of the patient for TB a patient will be treated for 6 months and cleared of that bacteria without this treatment you'll see a patient losing weight and energy ultimately die, but with TB treatment within 1 month the person start to pick up, if that is a clean up process of the body why would it be so hard such that a person would lose weight, have night sweat, lose energy and die without the anti bacteria treatment
What if the rna transcripts considered to be “viruses” and blamed for causing disease are actually just unnecessary and unneeded waste material cast off when a cell divides?
Cell poop, if you will.
Material the cell knew was detrimental to itself. Itcellf?
A lot of viruses are endogenous, meaning they are simply genetic material in a protein coat (this is the rough definition of a virus, endogenous or exogenous), produced by the body itself in response to some kind of stress. Current “science” has a lot of trouble telling the difference between those and exogenous pathogens.
Can not find the words to express my relief at finding more and more people finally questioning the hiv/AID LIE after nearly forty years. Please do not mistake my questions seeking to understand your view as confrontational.
I have never viewed you as confrontational. You’re asking important questions. I’m very happy to have you as a vital part of the conversation/family here.
It is curious that You put the word science in quotes but not the word virus.
A sincere question in case i missed the news. When, where, how and by who were any of these genetic material in a protein coat “viruses” reduced to a purified isolate and demonstrated to cause disease?
Please know i am not intending to be confrontational or combative. Only trying to understand your view.
I really have disliked the quasi-contention between the two dissident camps, as it were; Duesberg vs the Perth Group. They may not agree on the existence of HIV, but both are complementary in so many ways and I find both so valuable. I actually love listening to presentations and interviews by Duesberg, he's got a lot of wit and humor sort of hides his contempt for the status quo scientists he so clearly see through.
I listened to another interview tonight on the LGBTQ Archives channel, when you listen to these interviews such interesting tidbits show up. In this one at the 1:25 mark, the fellow remarks about having lunch with someone and days later finding out that person had died.
Why isn't that happening now given all the unmedicated positives out there, much less those who don't know of their so-called status?
Meanwhile, other people went through a protracted illness like the partner he lost. Like you mentioned, 'proto-AIDS' was something that happened and doesn't seem to be happening now. In the above interview, his partner died in 1988 and he is described as wasting away, having been in the hospital receiving experimental treatments. No doubt he would have been given AZT at that time, in addition to whatever else they were giving him experimentally.
I'm not entirely convinced by the terrain theory camp, it seems to me there's likely a middle ground between it and germ theory. But yes, AIDS is a spectacular example of germ theory jumping the gun and toxicology being swept under the rug. It bugs me, really bugs me, that I don't know the back story behind people like this guy's partner, it's a huge missing piece to these stories. This notion that someone was just totally healthy and then suddenly dies or gets sick just screams 'there's something more going on.'
YES! Why aren’t more of those unknowingly infected suddenly being struck by fast acting illness? The original 1984 proposed “hiv”/AIDS Theory claims the “newly discovered retrovirus” killed within six months to two years after infection. Why would a “virus” that is so efficient at killing mutate into one that stays latent, non-reproductive and undetectable in “hidden reservoirs” for twenty years or more and may never harm some carriers?
And what ever happened to the “Kaposi’s sarcoma” lesions that were one of the first markers of infection in the early days of the “epidemic”? They seem to have disappeared along with the once common aroma of poppers on the dance floor. Coincidence?
Thanks for this on Peter. Although I do not have heroes, Peter would be so designated if I did.
I delved deeply into AIDS at the start of Covid-1984 in March 2020, brought there by my remembered reading 1991 of The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento when living in America, sensing there was a connection between these two. Of course, as Conspiracy Fact showed, there definitively was—both were staged plandemics.
I have been seeking anything by Peter directly on the topic of “No Viruses/Bacteria” Terrain theory but have not found any yet. Can you point me to some; or do a post on this, that would be greatly appreciated and needed, thanks.
> PD: Since the discovery of HIV in 1984,
No, that's not true. HIV was not "discovered".
HIV has never been observed, isolated, or proven to exist as a transmissible pathogen.
This is true, but I wanted to provide Dr. Duesberg’s perspective, because whether you like him or not, he opened the whole debate on AIDS causation. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he has made a lot of good points. More importantly, he is able to dismantle the paradigm from with the paradigm, which is tremendously important on a philosophical level. That is true falsification.
I was a Duesberg disciple back in the 1990s. He was an important part of my path and awakening.
But I just don't see the reason at this point, highlighting Duesberg IN ERROR, and without disclaimer, critical commentary, or counterpoint.
Here in 2023, it seems to me that you are just using your Substack as a vehicle to spread MISINFORMATION about the existence of HIV, Retroviruses, or viruses in general. Why?
I don's see how showing the fraud of 150 years of "virus isolation" in scientific journals is inconsistent with "dismantling the paradigm from with the paradigm".
I guess we need to agree to disagree. I think for people new to this movement, Duesberg cannot be avoided because he STARTED IT from within the scientific community, and whether you agree with him or not, his contributions are a huge part of the history of all of this. I’m not deleting part of history because he got some stuff wrong.
I never said delete anything.
I said DISCLAIM it. Explain it. Add some critical commentary.
Someone comes away from this thinking HIV and Retroviruses, or any viruses are real.
That has been completed refuted by Lanka, Kaufman, Cowan, et. al.
You lost me at Tom Cowan.
Bill is actually saying he agrees with Tom "No virus"exist
Please explain. Thanks.
Tom is IMHO one of our top experts.
He's pretty stainless, as far as I'm concerned.
Rock solid logic.
I believe virus exist particularly HIV
Your belief is irrelevant. The facts matter.
Please go read "HIV: A Virus Like No Other", by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, et. al., The Perth Group. https://theperthgroup.com/ https://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf
Why do you “believe viruses exist particularly HIV”? What demonstrated to you that what you believe is true?
Perhaps because when someone wholeheartedly and unquestioningly believes something is true because it is all they have ever been unquestioningly taught is true the best and perhaps only way to raise question or dissent to their belief is to approach it as if it were as real as the believer thinks it is then show them the failings.
Just a thought.
Have you ever known a religious fanatic or a cult member?
What is your point exactly Bill on the issue of the virus existence
There is actually a debate between the Perth Group and Duesberg on this point. You have to look past his belief in HIV being a harmless passenger virus to see his contribution to understanding AIDS. His documentation of toxicology is so important.
I also posit that there are misunderstandings about the definition of the word “virus” that contribute to the confusion. Proper definitions are critical to good science.
His explanation of AIDS in hemophiliacs is also extremely well done and convincing. Plus, he managed to falsify HIV AIDS within the paradigm of classical virology. No one gets everything right. (And I say this as someone that aligns more closely with Perth in this non-fight. I don’t think they really contradict one another.)
https://odysee.com/@PDXLibertarian:e/EllnerCulshaw:a
It world Aids day tomorrow
By the way, I think Peter Duesberg is a HERO.
Some people get angry when they see that opinion. I've learned to ignore people who want to start a flame war over one of my opinions. Musk them!
Agreed. As I mentioned in another comment reply, he was the first to falsify HIV AIDS from within the framework of the paradigm itself, which is true falsification. He may have gotten some things wrong, but he got a lot right.
Back in the late nineties I left a voicemail for Dr Duesberg at the number listed for him on the UC Berkeley registry. Thanked him for his 1086 dissent to the hiv theory that gave me the courage to reject clinic recommendation later that year that I immediately begin AZT. Antibody positive. Told him he was my hero. Came home from work the next night to a voicemail from Duesberg!!
Was listening to it for the third time when the phone rang. It was Dr Duesberg! We talked for close to an hour. He commended me for my understanding of the syndrome and my then ten years of research study. He told me I would be his hero by continuing to share dissent to the hiv theory.
Haven’t shut up about it since. No one will ever convince me that is not why I am banned from twitspace and ignorancegram.
That’s an amazing story! Thank you for standing up for the truth- you are a hero for doing so!
This is from "Inventing Aids virus " it will be interesting to know how long ago was that and how is the person keeping in 2023🤔
If by “this” you are referring to my comment about being diagnosed hiv antibody positive and encouraged to immediately begin AZT it is NOT from Dr Duesberg’s Inventing The AIDS Virus. I do own a copy of that book. It is my personal experience. I am alive and well 36 years after being told I would be dead in two years unless I began treatment with AZT.
Your story worth more, it should be shared and celebrated world over
Not my “story” but it has been told even if censored and silenced. Nobody wants to hear it because like you they feel secure being swaddled in a blanket of lies, arrogant ignorance and blind unquestioning faith in religious dogma they do not understand and cannot explain.
https://www.positivehell.com
It well if that is your story, I saw a similar story on the body I will refer to what page on the book maybe Peter acknowledged you in his book, well that's great!
Are you suggesting that you have read Inventing The AIDS Virus?
What are you talking about and why are you stalking me?
I'm referring to the extract from the book why would I be stalking you, I've read that piece so I'm just questioning whether the Author to Peter Duesberg how long has he/she maintained such a position? If that appears to stalk you I'm sorry but you also challenge some of my comments I never saw that as stalking
What “extract from the book” are you referring to?
There's no doubt Duesberg was a hero, he helped guys and parents of young children who had been put on AZT to get off it. He knew exactly what that poison was doing to people.
He also knew who was doing it and why they were doing it: the bastard sons of Mengele.
Thanks for pointing that out, he was (along with John Lauritsen) the first to sound the alarm, rightly, on AZT.
Dr Peter Duesberg is indeed my Hero!
I've read and heard a few times the following sentence: "there are no proofs in Science."
This is the postmodernist way of thinking.
There is no certainty, no data, there is no reality outside of the observer, texts have no meaning (and graphs, and paintings, and an electron microscopy photograph, etc.)
Obviously, this is nonsense.
But they pretend to believe it. Perhaps because it is convenient to get grant money.
And because that sentence is false, there has to be proof of contagious disease. And the no-virus people, who I follow, say there is no evidene to support the claim that disease can be transmitted from one sick person to a healthy person.
Then, the no-virus people (and no germ theory people) make this jump in logic: because there is no evidence, then the theory is false.
This is, in my opinion, half-wrong. A better sentece: because there is no evidence, we better wait until we have it before continuing the research path laid down by that Germ theory of disease. (Which is politically impossible, but who cares)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of falsehood, logically.
But.
There is a majority of doctors and scientists who believe germ theory is true. They all have been taught that it is true. I have asked a few times why it is true. What is the evidence they were given. And they don't mention it, or mention something for which there is a counterargument.
So, it is a theory in tatters.
Not that this constitutes any problem for Political Power at large, or for Financial Power. In the least. They don't need germ theory to be true. They only need the belief.
I'm open to actual evidence. I'm no fanatic. Besides, I only started questioning the virus in 2022, and Germ Theory this year. I confess that I've lived all my life (39 years) believing that infectious disease is real without any evidence or valid logical argument for it. Most people won't ever admit to that, and I don't know why. It's so liberating to admit the truth. It's the true path for learning.
How did the no virus people you follow convinced you there's no contagion against the world with over 30 millions of people living with HIV, be it today World Aids day
Interesting question, thank you.
I started listening and reading to the no-virus researchers and writers in 2022. I was very skeptical. I fought against their arguments. I was sure that there was proof of the general idea of contagious disease by means of microbes (bacteria, fungi, viruses, perhaps other things like protozoa and even haptenes, if they can be considered microbes.) But I saw no evidence. All evidence was fallacious. It is amazing: the very papers designed to proof contagiousness, like the Rosenau studies on the so called Spanish Flu, actually disproved their hypotheses.
(Incidentally, isn't that actually good science?!?!?)
And many other papers did the same.
So I had to reject the idea.
I became convinced that the falsehood of Germ Theory is the best kept secret of Western Medicine. It's 100% about political and economic control of the multitudes.
I've been trying to go back to believing in germ theory, even if only in part. It's difficult. But I'm open to finding any evidence. So far, no luck.
I took me like eight months to overcome my skepticism completely.
But, perhaps the idea that first appears the damage in the tissues, and then microbes appear in order to "heal" (by eating up) the dead and decaying tissue is the correct one. If so, the world is actually upside down compared to what we think it is.
How do the tissues of the body get damaged? Many ways: malnutrition, toxicity of any kind, including mold toxins in the air, impacts (like beating a prisoner with a stick or falling to the floor,) psychological abuse, psychogenic disease, OCD, depression, delusion, anxiety...
Maybe this alternative hypothesis, which is falsifiable too (and scientific, in the limited definition of Popper,) does not explain everything. There may be more things.
My best counterargument is flawed. Imagine this: everyone knows that a white shark can harm a person, and a bull, and a tiger, and a wolf, and a racoon, and a snake, and a poisonous centipede, and even small spiders. See what I'm doing? I'm reducing the size of the animal causing disease or harm. Why couldn't it be the case that smaller life forms, invisible, could also enter our bodies and harm us? Why couldn't it be that they parasitize our bodies and hope to jump to the next person? It's perfectly reasonable, right? But, we need proof. We need evidence that a healthy person gets invaded by an invisible bacteria or virus, and then disease happens, and there is no other explanation than the microbe causing harm. And then we need proof or transmission. But there are no such proofs! That's when my counterargument falls apart.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they cherry-picked the studies to make their debunking of Germ Theory more likely.
What do you think?
Do you have evidence?
By the way, I don't agree with the aggressive behavior in forums and comment sections displayed by some acolytes of this idea of no-virus and no GT. This is no pastime, like talking shit about sports. We have to moderate our passions, and take care to not fall in unwholesome communication.
Oh the germ hypothesis is bankrupt and has been refuted by its own adherents. No evidence of actual isolation of viruses (bacteria exist and are only beneficial) and no evidence of contagion. We would all be much better off leaving that fraud in the pseudoscientific dumpster it came from.
Bronchitis how is it beneficial to the suffer?
You are assuming the bacteria are the direct cause of the illness, rather than cleaning up the diseased tissue.
Yes pneumonia like TB the bacteria is identified from the sputum or blood of the patient for TB a patient will be treated for 6 months and cleared of that bacteria without this treatment you'll see a patient losing weight and energy ultimately die, but with TB treatment within 1 month the person start to pick up, if that is a clean up process of the body why would it be so hard such that a person would lose weight, have night sweat, lose energy and die without the anti bacteria treatment
What if the rna transcripts considered to be “viruses” and blamed for causing disease are actually just unnecessary and unneeded waste material cast off when a cell divides?
Cell poop, if you will.
Material the cell knew was detrimental to itself. Itcellf?
A lot of viruses are endogenous, meaning they are simply genetic material in a protein coat (this is the rough definition of a virus, endogenous or exogenous), produced by the body itself in response to some kind of stress. Current “science” has a lot of trouble telling the difference between those and exogenous pathogens.
Rebecca
I am so on your side in this!
Can not find the words to express my relief at finding more and more people finally questioning the hiv/AID LIE after nearly forty years. Please do not mistake my questions seeking to understand your view as confrontational.
I have never viewed you as confrontational. You’re asking important questions. I’m very happy to have you as a vital part of the conversation/family here.
It is curious that You put the word science in quotes but not the word virus.
A sincere question in case i missed the news. When, where, how and by who were any of these genetic material in a protein coat “viruses” reduced to a purified isolate and demonstrated to cause disease?
Please know i am not intending to be confrontational or combative. Only trying to understand your view.
What if?
Isn’t “what if” kinda the definition of science?
Is there no certainty but "what if"?
Got a better explanation?
Certainly plausible! There is alot of waste in the cell culture they use to make the vaccines.
I forgot who said it, but, while you will be forgiven for being wrong, you will never be forgiven for being right.
I really have disliked the quasi-contention between the two dissident camps, as it were; Duesberg vs the Perth Group. They may not agree on the existence of HIV, but both are complementary in so many ways and I find both so valuable. I actually love listening to presentations and interviews by Duesberg, he's got a lot of wit and humor sort of hides his contempt for the status quo scientists he so clearly see through.
I listened to another interview tonight on the LGBTQ Archives channel, when you listen to these interviews such interesting tidbits show up. In this one at the 1:25 mark, the fellow remarks about having lunch with someone and days later finding out that person had died.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCw-79yDuo
Why isn't that happening now given all the unmedicated positives out there, much less those who don't know of their so-called status?
Meanwhile, other people went through a protracted illness like the partner he lost. Like you mentioned, 'proto-AIDS' was something that happened and doesn't seem to be happening now. In the above interview, his partner died in 1988 and he is described as wasting away, having been in the hospital receiving experimental treatments. No doubt he would have been given AZT at that time, in addition to whatever else they were giving him experimentally.
I'm not entirely convinced by the terrain theory camp, it seems to me there's likely a middle ground between it and germ theory. But yes, AIDS is a spectacular example of germ theory jumping the gun and toxicology being swept under the rug. It bugs me, really bugs me, that I don't know the back story behind people like this guy's partner, it's a huge missing piece to these stories. This notion that someone was just totally healthy and then suddenly dies or gets sick just screams 'there's something more going on.'
YES! Why aren’t more of those unknowingly infected suddenly being struck by fast acting illness? The original 1984 proposed “hiv”/AIDS Theory claims the “newly discovered retrovirus” killed within six months to two years after infection. Why would a “virus” that is so efficient at killing mutate into one that stays latent, non-reproductive and undetectable in “hidden reservoirs” for twenty years or more and may never harm some carriers?
And what ever happened to the “Kaposi’s sarcoma” lesions that were one of the first markers of infection in the early days of the “epidemic”? They seem to have disappeared along with the once common aroma of poppers on the dance floor. Coincidence?
Thanks for this on Peter. Although I do not have heroes, Peter would be so designated if I did.
I delved deeply into AIDS at the start of Covid-1984 in March 2020, brought there by my remembered reading 1991 of The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS by Michael Fumento when living in America, sensing there was a connection between these two. Of course, as Conspiracy Fact showed, there definitively was—both were staged plandemics.
I have been seeking anything by Peter directly on the topic of “No Viruses/Bacteria” Terrain theory but have not found any yet. Can you point me to some; or do a post on this, that would be greatly appreciated and needed, thanks.
Get free, stay free.