The vast majority of people around the world believe that the healthcare system promoted by the agencies responsible for public health, especially the WHO, is firmly based on ‘sound science’.
I recently read Boston University's viral research study, which allegedly created a new COVID-19 virus strain that killed 80% of the infected lab mice. Interestingly, the lab mice are bred to be weak mice, so these are not healthy field mice you would find in nature. The Petri dish to culture the "virus" contains aborted baby cells, human lung cancer cells, human colorectal cancer cells, and African green monkey Vero cells. This Petri dish does NOT represent the human body or anything in nature. Still, they want everyone to believe the concoction of diseased human cancer cells, animal cells, and dead baby cells represents the human body. These "viral" research studies represent the finest pseudoscience bullshit big pharma money can buy.
Moreover, they did not create a "new virus strain", which fact becomes clear when one realizes that they have not (and can not) isolate and purify the "old virus strain", nor the "new virus strain". What they can do is poison their tissues culture with antimicrobial "medicines" and then inject, force into or otherwise assault the mice with their toxic stew, which contains both known and unknown subtances (being unpurified). From their point of view (which is wrong) there might be some other known or unknown mice killer "virus" lurking in their concoction.
Lab mice/rats are indeed bred with different weaknesses, to have results faster. Also they create a lot of offspring rather quickly. It would be almost impossible to catch enough field mice quickly to do research on. Also it is debatable how healthy they are.
If you "recently read" it is helpful if you give the name of the article. I doubt researchers advertised using "aborted baby cells" as I doubt that is what they used.
Furthermore: known as African green monkey kidney epithelial cells, Vero cell line is one of the most commonly used mammalian continuous and aneuploid cell lines in biology research. So no surprise here.
So, what is your point ? I am always happy to read research can be done in cell-lines in petri cells instead of in living mice and rats. These animals love their life just as much as you do.
He made his point clearly: the claim to have proven the existence of a new mice killer "virus" is nonsense, for the reasons spelled out by Christian, which include the pretense that an artificial, non-human, and unpurified assemblage of substances in a petri dish proves A) that a "virus" exists in the stew, and B) that an imagined "virus" somehow killed the mice rather than the stew itself, that has poisons that sicken tissues (antibiotics etc), and that possibly contains unidentified or unknown poisons in the unpurified gunk. Another important possibility is the method by which the mice were "exposed to contagion". (Hang them by their feet, drill holes in their skulls and inject gunk into their brains, Pasteur-style?)
I'm perplexed, confused by all of this I've seen people sick and eventually die from HIV related sickness, I just can't understand when there's an information that state otherwise, just recently a relative tested positive, what actually reacted as posive?
The HIV-causes-AIDS notion is a Package Deal--a bundle of logical fallacies, logical ommissions and stupid dogma that one must unpack and examine to understand why it makes no sense.
First, HIV "the virus" does not exist. It has never been proven to exist, never having been isolated. No isolation means no experiments can be or have been conducted to try to demonstrate whether or not the particles declared to be HIV can get into cells ("infect them"), and then self replicate (no army of "replicants" or even small groups of identical looking particles in sick people have ever been observed). Finally, no experiments have been run to find out whether or not the "virus particles" (that they've never found) can jump from one sick person to a well person making the well sick.
The foregoing is not hyperbole; it is literally and fully true.
Second, people who test postive for HIV never, or almost never, "infect" their romantic partners in unprotected sex. The HIV negative partner stays that way.
Third, AIDS is not a new disease, but a collection of old diseases that people have suffered from throughout history. The "researchers" and "epidemiologists" who needed to show "a pandemic" of rising numbers of "cases" more than once expanded their list of diseases they claimed were evidence of AIDS, meaning of an illness caused by an unproven-to-exist "virus". In this way they were able to report rising numbers of "cases" of "AIDS".
Fourth, because the virologists could not find or see any army of HIV "virions" in sick people, and because they could not isolate and purify any "virus" for the purpose of studying its molecular-chemical makeup, they could not prove the character of any DNA gentic sequence. The purpose of finding in a sick person and then showing such a sequence would partly be to devise tests to identify the presence of the gentic sequence supposedly sourced from (suspected) "virions" in sick people. This is the short explanation as to why HIV tests are bogus, meaningless and cruelly misleading.
When people get sick with similar symptoms, they tend to produce similar tissue breakdown, which releases shards and particles of tissue decomposition. To the extent that testing reports the presence of a particular protein (which can be a decomposition product, but which is arbitrarily declared by virus hunters to be the protein shell of "HIV virus"), then to that extent those people may be experiencing similar tissue decay.
Not all or even most who are sick with one of the AIDS illnesses test positive for "HIV". But then their HIV-negative sickness is classified as non-AIDS!
One does not need to invent a virus to explain meaningless "test results".
Dawn do you mean you haven't seen or atleast found HIV as cause of Aids in its 38 years of existence, furthermore you say all these research on HIV are not true, there's now injection of HIV vaccine what is the mean no virus ever shown to cause a disease, what of growing numbers of new HIV infections which proves transmission between people mainly through sex
The tests are all based on the theory that there is a 'virus' that has been proven to exist and cause people to become ill. But this is an unproven theory.
Reactions to a test are not a reliable indicator of a person's health. This is particularly the case if a person does not have symptoms.
I would suggest that you might like to watch this video in which Dr Valendar Turner of the Perth Group explains that the antibody tests are not specific.
This is such a wonderful article. Thanks so much for sharing, Dawn. And welcome to Substack!
I recently read Boston University's viral research study, which allegedly created a new COVID-19 virus strain that killed 80% of the infected lab mice. Interestingly, the lab mice are bred to be weak mice, so these are not healthy field mice you would find in nature. The Petri dish to culture the "virus" contains aborted baby cells, human lung cancer cells, human colorectal cancer cells, and African green monkey Vero cells. This Petri dish does NOT represent the human body or anything in nature. Still, they want everyone to believe the concoction of diseased human cancer cells, animal cells, and dead baby cells represents the human body. These "viral" research studies represent the finest pseudoscience bullshit big pharma money can buy.
Moreover, they did not create a "new virus strain", which fact becomes clear when one realizes that they have not (and can not) isolate and purify the "old virus strain", nor the "new virus strain". What they can do is poison their tissues culture with antimicrobial "medicines" and then inject, force into or otherwise assault the mice with their toxic stew, which contains both known and unknown subtances (being unpurified). From their point of view (which is wrong) there might be some other known or unknown mice killer "virus" lurking in their concoction.
Lab mice/rats are indeed bred with different weaknesses, to have results faster. Also they create a lot of offspring rather quickly. It would be almost impossible to catch enough field mice quickly to do research on. Also it is debatable how healthy they are.
If you "recently read" it is helpful if you give the name of the article. I doubt researchers advertised using "aborted baby cells" as I doubt that is what they used.
Furthermore: known as African green monkey kidney epithelial cells, Vero cell line is one of the most commonly used mammalian continuous and aneuploid cell lines in biology research. So no surprise here.
So, what is your point ? I am always happy to read research can be done in cell-lines in petri cells instead of in living mice and rats. These animals love their life just as much as you do.
He made his point clearly: the claim to have proven the existence of a new mice killer "virus" is nonsense, for the reasons spelled out by Christian, which include the pretense that an artificial, non-human, and unpurified assemblage of substances in a petri dish proves A) that a "virus" exists in the stew, and B) that an imagined "virus" somehow killed the mice rather than the stew itself, that has poisons that sicken tissues (antibiotics etc), and that possibly contains unidentified or unknown poisons in the unpurified gunk. Another important possibility is the method by which the mice were "exposed to contagion". (Hang them by their feet, drill holes in their skulls and inject gunk into their brains, Pasteur-style?)
I hereby salute SAMANTHA ANNABEL HOPE BAILEY, MD for introducing me to the Terrain Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFS57OJ9VyM
I'm perplexed, confused by all of this I've seen people sick and eventually die from HIV related sickness, I just can't understand when there's an information that state otherwise, just recently a relative tested positive, what actually reacted as posive?
The HIV-causes-AIDS notion is a Package Deal--a bundle of logical fallacies, logical ommissions and stupid dogma that one must unpack and examine to understand why it makes no sense.
First, HIV "the virus" does not exist. It has never been proven to exist, never having been isolated. No isolation means no experiments can be or have been conducted to try to demonstrate whether or not the particles declared to be HIV can get into cells ("infect them"), and then self replicate (no army of "replicants" or even small groups of identical looking particles in sick people have ever been observed). Finally, no experiments have been run to find out whether or not the "virus particles" (that they've never found) can jump from one sick person to a well person making the well sick.
The foregoing is not hyperbole; it is literally and fully true.
Second, people who test postive for HIV never, or almost never, "infect" their romantic partners in unprotected sex. The HIV negative partner stays that way.
Third, AIDS is not a new disease, but a collection of old diseases that people have suffered from throughout history. The "researchers" and "epidemiologists" who needed to show "a pandemic" of rising numbers of "cases" more than once expanded their list of diseases they claimed were evidence of AIDS, meaning of an illness caused by an unproven-to-exist "virus". In this way they were able to report rising numbers of "cases" of "AIDS".
Fourth, because the virologists could not find or see any army of HIV "virions" in sick people, and because they could not isolate and purify any "virus" for the purpose of studying its molecular-chemical makeup, they could not prove the character of any DNA gentic sequence. The purpose of finding in a sick person and then showing such a sequence would partly be to devise tests to identify the presence of the gentic sequence supposedly sourced from (suspected) "virions" in sick people. This is the short explanation as to why HIV tests are bogus, meaningless and cruelly misleading.
When people get sick with similar symptoms, they tend to produce similar tissue breakdown, which releases shards and particles of tissue decomposition. To the extent that testing reports the presence of a particular protein (which can be a decomposition product, but which is arbitrarily declared by virus hunters to be the protein shell of "HIV virus"), then to that extent those people may be experiencing similar tissue decay.
Not all or even most who are sick with one of the AIDS illnesses test positive for "HIV". But then their HIV-negative sickness is classified as non-AIDS!
One does not need to invent a virus to explain meaningless "test results".
>>>>>>>I've seen people sick and eventually die from HIV related sickness,..<<<<<<
Let Doctor Bailey explain the concept:
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/the-yin-yang-of-hiv-part-one/
This article is exactly what would be written if someone wanted to discredit real skeptics
Can you explain what you mean please. I am not trying to discredit anyone.
Dawn do you mean you haven't seen or atleast found HIV as cause of Aids in its 38 years of existence, furthermore you say all these research on HIV are not true, there's now injection of HIV vaccine what is the mean no virus ever shown to cause a disease, what of growing numbers of new HIV infections which proves transmission between people mainly through sex
No I have not found any evidence that there is a virus called 'HIV' that is the cause of AIDS.
There are many resources to support this. Here's one useful website you might like to look at,
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/
What then react positive on the test Dawn?
The tests are all based on the theory that there is a 'virus' that has been proven to exist and cause people to become ill. But this is an unproven theory.
Reactions to a test are not a reliable indicator of a person's health. This is particularly the case if a person does not have symptoms.
I would suggest that you might like to watch this video in which Dr Valendar Turner of the Perth Group explains that the antibody tests are not specific.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS-ytZfNWXw
Answers:
Kary Mullis / videos/ youtube/ Bitchute
Dr Tom Cowan / videos/ Bitchute
Christine Massey / website
we're a long way down the rabbit hole- but we can get out! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/were-so-far-down-the-rabbit-hole
Jo