It is interesting that 'HIV' being a 'quasi-species', because of its wild variability and mutation rate, yet the same antigens and primers are used year after year for 'it'. Nutty.
Since they are all fraudulent products, maybe the AIDS thing was just a trial run for what would become a worldwide campaign (COVID). It's a huge data collection event first and foremost.
Hard to know cuz it's hard to get straight answers.
How common is it for a person, never tested before, to walk into an emergency room with bad pneumonia and test positive for HIV with CD4<500 ? And what happens to all the HIV positive people who never been tested - where are they? Doesn't add up.
Thanks Rebecca. I always wondered why they didn't years ago just concoct some random injection and call it a safe and effective HIV vaccine. With enough clever marketing, most people would fall for it. But here's the rub. Whereas covid shots are marketed to absolutely everybody, only a subset of the population sees itself as at risk for HIV which still carries some baggage of stigma.
So, as you have diligently reported, they are instead sneakily introducing PrEP and steadily expanding the audience it is marketed to. Do you suppose that effort will culminate in a compelling narrative that fully de-stigmatizes HIV and makes some future version of PrEP pills, injection or "HIV vaccine" not only palatable but even desirable and irresistible for the broader masses?
"Passive transfer of antibodies against HIV-1 was first tested clinically in the early 1990s with pooled polyclonal antibodies. Subsequently, a series of studies tested first generation monoclonal antibodies in the context of ongoing viremia or during ART interruption (reviewed in [16]). While generally safe, the antibodies showed limited antiviral activity, which led investigators to abandon passive bNAb immunotherapy for HIV-1 infection until highly broad and potent bNAbs became available."
Broadly-Neutralizing Antibodies (bNAbs) for the Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection (2021)
I think this means that they took the antibodies from all kinds of seropositive people, mixed them all together in a pool and then injected the pooled antibodies into other seropositive people to see what happens. So when that didn't reduce 'the virus', they been trying ever since ever stronger antibody strategies (monoclonal and monoclonal derived from 'elite-controllers') and still doesn't keep away the virus:
"VRC01 did not prevent overall HIV-1 acquisition more effectively than placebo"
Two Randomized Trials of Neutralizing Antibodies to Prevent HIV-1 Acquisition (2021)
The invincible, forever-mutating 'glycan shield' theory is exactly the same excuse for why the flu shots don't work, so it's no surprise that $1 trillion dollars over forty years hasn't yielded a jab to prevent HIV seroconversion.
Even the red blood cells of different people bear different variations of 'glycan shield'; this is the basis of the A,B, AB, O blood group classification. So why would anybody expect that an HIV glycoprotein in one person be bearing exactly the same 'glycan shield' as the same HIV glycoprotein in another person, even if they were infected from the same source? So maybe it's not just 'the virus' always changing but also if different people make their proteins with different 'glycan shields' on them, then the antibody from one person won't work so well in a different person, becuz everybody has their own brand of 'glycan shield'.
.
Fortunately, if it takes forty years and a trillion dollars to build a Tower of Babel, then it only costs another trillion dollars to fix it.
An imminent rollout of an HIV mRNA “vaccine” would explain the recently increased publicity encouraging greater testing, as you, Farber and others note, given the specious logic (illogic) behind both hiv and mrna frauds.
It is interesting that 'HIV' being a 'quasi-species', because of its wild variability and mutation rate, yet the same antigens and primers are used year after year for 'it'. Nutty.
that's an excellent point!
Since they are all fraudulent products, maybe the AIDS thing was just a trial run for what would become a worldwide campaign (COVID). It's a huge data collection event first and foremost.
Hard to know cuz it's hard to get straight answers.
How common is it for a person, never tested before, to walk into an emergency room with bad pneumonia and test positive for HIV with CD4<500 ? And what happens to all the HIV positive people who never been tested - where are they? Doesn't add up.
Thanks Rebecca. I always wondered why they didn't years ago just concoct some random injection and call it a safe and effective HIV vaccine. With enough clever marketing, most people would fall for it. But here's the rub. Whereas covid shots are marketed to absolutely everybody, only a subset of the population sees itself as at risk for HIV which still carries some baggage of stigma.
So, as you have diligently reported, they are instead sneakily introducing PrEP and steadily expanding the audience it is marketed to. Do you suppose that effort will culminate in a compelling narrative that fully de-stigmatizes HIV and makes some future version of PrEP pills, injection or "HIV vaccine" not only palatable but even desirable and irresistible for the broader masses?
A South African lab technician who is in later stage of development of HIV was told to stop that project by USAID
"Passive transfer of antibodies against HIV-1 was first tested clinically in the early 1990s with pooled polyclonal antibodies. Subsequently, a series of studies tested first generation monoclonal antibodies in the context of ongoing viremia or during ART interruption (reviewed in [16]). While generally safe, the antibodies showed limited antiviral activity, which led investigators to abandon passive bNAb immunotherapy for HIV-1 infection until highly broad and potent bNAbs became available."
Broadly-Neutralizing Antibodies (bNAbs) for the Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection (2021)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7340121/
.
I think this means that they took the antibodies from all kinds of seropositive people, mixed them all together in a pool and then injected the pooled antibodies into other seropositive people to see what happens. So when that didn't reduce 'the virus', they been trying ever since ever stronger antibody strategies (monoclonal and monoclonal derived from 'elite-controllers') and still doesn't keep away the virus:
"VRC01 did not prevent overall HIV-1 acquisition more effectively than placebo"
Two Randomized Trials of Neutralizing Antibodies to Prevent HIV-1 Acquisition (2021)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8189692/
.
The invincible, forever-mutating 'glycan shield' theory is exactly the same excuse for why the flu shots don't work, so it's no surprise that $1 trillion dollars over forty years hasn't yielded a jab to prevent HIV seroconversion.
Even the red blood cells of different people bear different variations of 'glycan shield'; this is the basis of the A,B, AB, O blood group classification. So why would anybody expect that an HIV glycoprotein in one person be bearing exactly the same 'glycan shield' as the same HIV glycoprotein in another person, even if they were infected from the same source? So maybe it's not just 'the virus' always changing but also if different people make their proteins with different 'glycan shields' on them, then the antibody from one person won't work so well in a different person, becuz everybody has their own brand of 'glycan shield'.
.
Fortunately, if it takes forty years and a trillion dollars to build a Tower of Babel, then it only costs another trillion dollars to fix it.
An imminent rollout of an HIV mRNA “vaccine” would explain the recently increased publicity encouraging greater testing, as you, Farber and others note, given the specious logic (illogic) behind both hiv and mrna frauds.