“Ten Lies About AIDS”
More from Etienne de Harven
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.
One of the most underappreciated critics or whistleblowers of AIDS dogma is the late Etienne de Harven. You’ll notice that his Wikipedia page is surprisingly balanced, likely because of his impeccable pedigree in electron microscopy, retroviral isolation, and his work on isolation of the Friend leukemia virus in collaboration with Charlotte Friend. His book, Ten Lies About AIDS, is available in paperback.
I previously wrote about him here:
And here—the embedded video is well worth the time because it explains very simply the problems with isolation of HIV, as well as the role of human endogenous retroviruses in disease processes.
HIV has never been isolated from AIDS patients
Etienne de Harven's book, Ten Lies About AIDS, argues that these statements about AIDS are false.
1 - AIDS is a new syndrome.
2 - The existence of HIV has been appropriately demonstrated.
3 - HIV is actually the cause of AIDS.
4 - Antiretroviral medications are helpful for AIDS sufferers.
5 - Seropositivity indicates an active process of HIV infection.
6 - AIDS is a contagious pathological process.
7 - HIV is responsible for numerous illnesses.
8 - It is better for people to know their serological HIV status.
9 - There is indeed an AIDS pandemic affecting the general population.
10 - All medical researchers agree, indisputably, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
I disagree with #9. As I have indicated many times, there is an AIDS epidemic affecting the general population that has been hidden by a game of epidemiological obfuscation. This also casts doubt on #6. Thanks to the groundbreaking investigative reporting of Neenyah Ostrom and Hillary Johnson, it is painfully obvious what has been hidden in plain sight. I hope to make it clear why the subtitle of my book is "How the tragic HIV mistake threatens us all." I suspect that it is the subtitle that has most offended the AIDS establishment and activists.
I also don’t agree with #1. Acquired immune deficiency is not a new syndrome; it has been with us for some time and will continue to be with us as long as we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to consider agents other than HIV—which, to my mind, and the minds of many others (I agree one hundred percent that #10 is obviously false), has been thoroughly absolved of any culpability in AIDS. Until that happens, I cannot say that it logically follows that because HIV positivity is not transmissible—which has been well established by the Perth Group and the work of Henry Bauer—that AIDS is also not transmissible, since the two are distinct (but not disjoint). If HIV is unrelated to AIDS, its transmissibility has nothing to do with that of AIDS. More research desperately needs to happen, including regarding other infectious agents of interest.
On every other point, I agree with de Harven thoroughly.
Which of Etienne de Harven's points do you agree or disagree with?
An indirect response to the problems with the virus hypothesis of HIV aids, and other infectious illnesses, is Morphic Resonance, a novel concept of “infection” described by biologist Rupert Sheldrake.
I first encountered Dr Sheldrake’s work when I read his book, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home. I quickly realized that he had a deep knowledge of the invisible connections between living organisms and also between “inanimate” substances. He also has a gift for creating simple research studies demonstrating it. He has written books and given lectures on the scientific explanation of this connection, which he refers to as Morphic Fields and “Morphic Resonance.”
During the past two years it became clear to me that morphic resonance explains “infection” better than the virus hypothesis. Otherwise how could we live in harmony with 37 trillion bacteria, fungi and viruses which are part of our natural human biome, and then get an infection from the very same microbes? I have become confident that when we are out of harmony, these microbes are invited to create an “infectious illness”. We are influenced by others in many ways, and there are also “collective unconscious” connections that likely have more significance than the viruses or bacteria in question.
Sheldrake adopted the term “Morphic Fields” from prior research by other scientists. He describes these fields as being similar to gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields that also have influences across great distances. Although we can interact and learn to manage this interaction, we cannot eliminate the connection any more than we can eliminate a gravitational field that keeps us attracted to the earth. Because he is a biologist, much of his research involves plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi.
Here is a short clip of him describing some of his more interesting research into these connecting fields, related to the book I read “dogs that know when their owners are coming home.”
https://youtu.be/9QsPWitQovM
Etienne de Harven perceptively wrote in 2007, Viral epidemics follow the same systematic steps, these key steps include, inventing the risk of a disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines. This guarantees large financial returns. We are not witnessing viral epidemics, we are witnessing epidemics of fear, and both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears, fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business. Research hypotheses covering these area of virus research are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Established “consensus” is rapidly reshaped into dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses.