top of page

HIV/AIDS was the Prequel to the COVID-19 Pseudopandemic.



The COVID-19 pseudopandemic and the AIDS scam have many similarities and some of the same actors have been involved in both dramas. There have been many deaths falsely attributed to both of these non-existent viruses. There has been widespread silencing of critics of the orthodoxy, regardless of credentials. Families and friendships have been split apart over questioning the official dogma. Many millions of people have lost jobs and livelihoods across a wide spectrum of different professions and careers. According to scientist Simon Lee, who argues:


HIV/AIDS was the Prequel to the COVID-19 Pseudopandemic.


Article by Simon Lee, Science Officer, Anew UK


The AIDS scare of the 1980s and 1990s is relevant to the story of COVID-19 because that’s when today’s dominant global governmental-institutional-pharmaceutical infrastructure was put in place. It ended free and open scientific inquiry, expansive, creative thinking, and replaced it with corrosive, unquestionable dogmatic pseudoscience.


On April 23, 1984, the Reagan administration called a press conference and announced to the world that Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute had discovered a retrovirus, (later called HIV) that was the probable cause of AIDS. The word “probable” was dropped the very next day.


The press conference occurred prior to the publication of any scientific proof and amid growing controversy about the effectiveness of toxic drugs like AZT to have any benefit in treating people with AIDS.










The HIV/AIDS hypothesis was known to be wrong and there was no proof of causality, between HIV and AIDS. Many HIV-positive cases didn’t have AIDS and many AIDS cases were not HIV-positive. The hypothesis involved a circular definition of AIDS in that AIDS patients without HIV were not officially listed by the CDC as having AIDS (no HIV = no AIDS).


The viral cause of AIDS presented by Gallo completely surprised the world’s scientists, since it had never been mentioned in any scientific or medical journal, nor had the idea been discussed at any scientific meetings prior to this press conference.


Anthony Fauci.


The then-newly appointed Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), used the AIDS scare to perfect the dark art of “science by press release.” His name was Anthony Fauci. He usurped scientific scrutiny and debate and replaced it with unquestionable pseudoscientific dogma.


The fraudulent AIDS scenario, which remains dogma to this day, states that:


• AIDS is contagious

• AIDS is sexually transmitted

• AIDS is caused by HIV

• AIDS originated in Africa

• AIDS is inevitably fatal


What is slightly problematic about this scenario is that not one of these assertions is true.


AIDS does not behave like a contagious disease


Contagious diseases do not usually discriminate between the sexes or races. But, we are told, AIDS somehow does, by disproportionately affecting men and black people.


During the first decade of AIDS, 90% of cases in the US were men, mostly male homosexuals and heterosexual intravenous drug users.


In 1993, the CDC added cervical cancer to the list of diseases that defined AIDS, and yet American women still awkwardly refused to get AIDS, accounting for only 1% of all AIDS cases.


Novel contagious diseases spread rapidly throughout the population, reach a peak, and then decline rapidly, following a bell-shaped curve over a period of weeks to months. An infection with HIV, we’re told, takes years or even more than a decade to cause clinical AIDS.


The CDC claims that there are approximately 50,000 new HIV infections each year in the US. However, over a period of 37 years (1986-2022) the number of Americans “living with HIV” has remained at a suspiciously constant 1 million. This is only possible if an equal number of HIV-positive Americans die each year. The numbers don’t add up.


AIDS is clearly not contagious.


AIDS is not sexually transmitted


Virologists claim that up to 8% of the human genome consists of dormant “retroviruses”. In reality, retroviral genomes constructed on computers have incorporated some human DNA sequences from the unpurified complex multi-species genetic soups used to construct “viral genomes”. Because of the unscientific and non-reproducible nature of this process, virologists also claim that there are over 3,000 different “retroviruses”.


Leaving that aside, however, even on their own terms, virologists have known for at least 70 years that retroviruses do not kill the cells they infect, are not sexually transmitted, and not one has ever been demonstrated to cause disease in humans.


A 10-year study attempted to measure the efficiency of heterosexual transmission of HIV and found that the transmission efficiency was ZERO. In other words, none of the HIV-negative sex partners became HIV-positive from years of unprotected sex with their HIV-positive partners.


The CDC doesn’t even list sex with a prostitute as a risk category for AIDS. Non-drug-abusing prostitutes in Germany, Zurich, Vienna, London, Paris, Pardenone (Italy), Athens, and America have no higher risk of contracting AIDS than other women.


If HIV was sexually transmitted, then its prevalence should resemble that of other sexually transmitted diseases. However, there is a negative correlation between sexually transmitted syphilis and the prevalence of HIV among pregnant women in the South African provinces.


Similar results have been reported for Uganda and Thailand. There is also a negative correlation between syphilis and HIV prevalence over time. Again, similar results have been reported for Uganda and Thailand.


Gay Lifestyle


Immune suppression and Kaposi’s sarcoma were the clinical conditions originally considered to define AIDS. Prior to the announcement of HIV, the CDC was aware that these diseases were strongly associated with the gay lifestyle, in particular the heavy use of recreational drugs, especially poppers.


Poppers (alkyl nitrites) are inhaled by some gay men to act as aphrodisiacs and muscle relaxants to facilitate anal sex. Nitrites are known to be very chemically reactive and are strong carcinogens.


Studies on gay men with AIDS have revealed that many of them are regular and heavy drug abusers. Not necessarily intravenous drugs, but nonetheless regular and generally heavy users of many different chemical substances, including quaaludes (barbiturate-like sedatives), cocaine, nitrite inhalants (poppers), ethyl chloride, amphetamines, tuinal, barbiturates, uppers, downers, etc.


After almost 35 years of research, there is still no microbiological proof of sexual transmission based on the isolation of “HIV” from genital secretions of index cases followed by testing and tracing of sexual contacts. AIDS has remained confined to groups at risk because of lifestyle factors rather than because of exposure to a non-discriminatory STD.


Early studies showed a relationship between different types of sexual activity and the presence or appearance of “HIV” antibodies, for which almost all AIDS patients tested positive. This association was probably real. This is because of the flawed way the test was developed. A positive test indicates raised levels of antibodies which can be induced by the numerous immune-stimulating agents to which those in the AIDS risk groups have been exposed.


A Disease of Sexual Practices


Epidemiologists noted such exposures from day one. This means that people who tested “HIV”-positive should never have been led to believe that they were under a death sentence due to a lethal new virus.


According to the Perth group of scientists, one of the main real causes of both “HIV”-positivity and AIDS is exposure to anally deposited semen. Studies on gay men and heterosexuals have revealed that the only sexual risk factor for a positive HIV antibody test is passive anal sex. It has been suggested that a high frequency of receptive anal intercourse over a long period is necessary for AIDS to develop.


Anally deposited semen is retained and absorbed because the rectum is lined only by a single layer of absorptive cells. In contrast, the vagina has a multi-layered, skin-like protective lining that prevents the absorption of semen. Rectal and colonic trauma with passive anal sex are proven risk factors for AIDS.


Nitrite inhalants, widely used to facilitate gay sex in the early years of AIDS, may also facilitate absorption of semen as well as being potent oxidising, immunosuppressive agents in their own right.


Surprisingly, semen is one of the most potent biological oxidants, and there is theoretical and experimental evidence for it being both carcinogenic and immunosuppressive.


According to the Perth group of scientists:


“The evidence shows that AIDS is not a disease of sexual orientation but of sexual practices, passive anal intercourse in men and women. It is not the sexual act per se but high frequencies of passive anal intercourse with ejaculation combined with drug use and trauma to the intestinal lining which facilitate system absorption of semen and other toxins.”


There is no Virus


A group of scientists in Perth, Western Australia, have challenged the HIV/AIDS dogma and its premature acceptance by the scientific and medical communities from the very beginning. They have posted a detailed, 80-page manuscript questioning the very existence of the virus.


Despite thousands of claims to the contrary, there is still no proof such a virus has been isolated and purified from the tissues of AIDS patients.


The Perth group has, rather predictably, faced fierce criticism and relentless censorship from those benefiting from the multi-billion-dollar HIV/AIDS industry.


It is claimed that retroviruses have RNA genomes that are reverse transcribed into DNA by the enzyme reverse transcriptase. According to HIV researchers, detection of reverse transcriptase activity in laboratory cell cultures is proof of the existence of retroviruses like HIV:


“The specimen [tissue from the swollen lymph node of a gay man at risk of AIDS] was minced, put into tissue culture, and analysed for reverse transcriptase. After two weeks of culture, reverse- transcriptase activity was detected in the culture medium. A retrovirus was present”. Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier


However, it has been known since 1973 that reverse transcriptase activity is not specific to “retroviruses”.


It is now known that at least two-fifths of the human genome is made up of retrotransposons, which are mobile genetic elements that can amplify themselves within cells by first being transcribed from DNA to RNA, and then reverse transcribed to DNA. Reverse transcriptase is ubiquitous within human cells. Furthermore, several “non-HIV” microbes reverse transcribe RNA into DNA, including some bacteria. Therefore, the detection of reverse transcriptase activity does not prove the presence of a “retrovirus”.


Despite this, in a 1997 interview, Luc Montagnier was still claiming that reverse transcriptase activity “is truly specific to retroviruses”.


Purification of supposed HIV particles by separating them from cellular material has never been performed. According to the Perth group:


“Viruses are particles. Without proof for the existence of particles, there is no proof of the existence of a virus.”


Montagnier and Gallo


Both the Montagnier and Gallo teams did regularly attempt to purify HIV particles from cell culture experiments on AIDS patients. They used a technique long established in retrovirology called sucrose density gradient ultracentrifugation, followed by examination with an Electron Microscope (EM) in attempts to demonstrate the presence of the particles.


In several cell culture experiments, Montagnier’s group identified reverse transcriptase activity, which they interpreted as meaning a retrovirus was present. However, they failed to detect any HIV particles associated with this reverse transcriptase activity.


In an experiment using lymphocyte cells from umbilical cord blood, obtained from two placentas, a single micrograph of the (unpurified) cell culture did show a few particles resembling a retrovirus, which the Montagnier group called “HIV”. But umbilical cord cell cultures are known to produce such particles, irrespective of “HIV” infection, or indeed any viral infection at all. No control experiment was done, to see whether the umbilical cord lymphocytes by themselves produced the same result. Even if the particles did originate from the patient’s swollen lymph nodes, and not from the umbilical cord cells, that would still not prove them to be a “retrovirus”, let alone ”HIV”.


In an extensive, blinded, 1988 EM study from Harvard, “HIV particles” were found in 18 out of 20 patients (90%) with swollen lymph nodes attributed to AIDS, and in 13 out of 15 patients (87%) with swollen lymph nodes not attributed to AIDS. In other words, particles that just look as if they might be “retroviruses” are non-specific. They can be seen in people with non-AIDS-related illnesses and also in healthy people.


This is why it is crucial to purify particles, in order to then be able to examine virus particles, accurately characterise their constituents, and prove they are infectious.


Speaking in 1997 Luc Montagnier said: “We saw some particles [in the “purified virus” material] but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different.”


Commenting on Gallo’s work Montagnier went on to say: “I don’t know if he really purified. I don’t believe so.”


Robert Gallo published four papers in 1984 claiming to have found the virus that was “the probable cause of AIDS” but he too failed to observe, purify and characterise actual virus particles.


Not a single electron micrograph of purified “HIV” was published by Gallo in 1984, or since. Neither has Montagnier published such pictures. European and US groups who tried to correct this deficiency have not been able to provide clear evidence of the existence of “HIV” particles either.


False Claims


Claims that a full-length HIV genome had been sequenced seemed to validate “HIV” as a tangible reality. However, Gallo’s team falsely claimed that the RNA “virus” was obtained from purified virus particles. In fact, in the so-called “purified virus” material, no virus-like particles were demonstrated.


The RNA obtained was messenger RNA (mRNA) which has long been known to band in the centrifuge at the density considered characteristic of “retroviruses”. Gallo interpreted these fragments as the genome of a retrovirus. In follow up studies, they reproduced this “genome” through molecular cloning techniques. There were no valid grounds for assuming the presence of a new viral agent. At no point did Gallo provide evidence to support the claim that “virus particles were purified”, nor even that they existed in the material they were working with.


When Gallo did test AIDS patients directly for the presence of the purported “HIV” genome, he failed to find evidence for it. In other words, contrary to the HIV theory of AIDS, Gallo was not able to prove the existence of the HIV genome in AIDS patients.


Neither Gallo nor Montagnier, nor any other researcher from back then up to the present day, has defined the “HIV” genome by obtaining RNA from purified retroviral particles. After all these years, there is still no proof of the existence of the genome of a new virus, nor of the existence of the whole “HIV” genome in a single AIDS patient.


Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test


Small segments of the supposed genome can be detected through the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, and are often wrongly interpreted as confirmation of an “HIV” diagnosis, even though the segments vary so much that the “experts” have to create “consensus sequences”. The variation can often be as high as 30-40%. That compares with less than 2% between the human and chimpanzee genomes. Even 50% variation is accepted by most researchers without questioning whether they are really working with a unique viral entity.


This high variability is more consistent with the sequences of newly made RNA produced by abnormally stimulated cells than of a virus for which no researcher has ever published proof of purification.


This “shock” stimulus can come from chemical agents added to cells in the laboratory, the numerous biological and non-biological chemicals to which AIDS patients are exposed, or from the variety of real microbes to which AIDS risk groups are repeatedly exposed. The common factor is the “shock” to the cells and not the presence of a mythical virus. This interpretation is supported by the finding of so-called “HIV” sequences from tumours in several types of cancer.


Following an allegation of scientific misconduct there was a two-year US National Institutes of Health Office of Scientific Integrity investigation into Gallo’s laboratory practices.


It was discovered that a cell line which Gallo claimed to have infected with “HIV” did not contain material from an individual AIDS patient, but was exposed to culture fluids from first 3 and then ultimately from 10 patients.


According to the inquiry, this was “of dubious scientific rigour” (one scientist called it “really crazy”). One of Gallo’s co-workers admitted that he had to pool the cultures because none “individually was producing high concentrations of reverse transcriptase”.


“And since, to date, nobody has published proof that the ‘HIV’ RNA, whose measurement is used to determine the ‘viral load’, originates from a retroviral particle, the explanation that there is no virus must hold true. There is no ‘HIV’ causing AIDS because there is no HIV.” Perth Group


Scientists around the world are doing tests for a virus never proven to exist, using proteins and nucleic acids originating from normal cells that have been stressed.


AIDS in Africa


Most people don’t know that the CDC and the World Health Organization, have defined two very different AIDS epidemics. There is one definition for Americans, Europeans, and other wealthy nations, and a very different definition for Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, etc. AIDS is completely different depending on where you live.


At a 1985 conference in Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic, African AIDS was defined by symptoms that included fever, diarrhoea, persistent cough, and weight-loss.

Tuberculosis was added to this list, in the mid 1990s. These have long been recognised as diseases of poverty and malnutrition. They remain the basis for making a diagnosis of AIDS in Africa to this day. HIV was not even included in the definition.









We are told that Sub-Saharan Africa has been devastated by over thirty years of AIDS but the statistics tell a different story. Between 1980 and 2000 the population of Sub-Saharan Africa increased from 378 million to 652 million, corresponding to an annual growth rate of 3.6%. This is in spite of a cumulative reported total of 1,093,522 AIDS cases by 2001.


The population of Sub-Saharan Africa has grown by a factor of 2.8 times since the AIDS epidemic supposedly began in Africa. In Africa, diseases caused by poverty have been rebranded as AIDS and there has been no “HIV” epidemic.


Peter Duesberg’s Scientific Critique of the HIV/AIDS Dogma and his Subsequent Crucifixion


“One might expect that the conclusions of a high-ranking scientist such as Duesberg—that HIV cannot cause AIDS (and variations on this theme by a growing number of other scientists)—should have made the headlines by now. However, with few exceptions (notably the London Sunday Times), they have not.” Mike Chappelle


In 1987, Professor Peter Duesberg, a virologist at the University of California Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, published a paper in the prestigious journal Cancer Research, which stated that HIV was not sufficient to cause AIDS.


He claimed that viruses such as HIV usually do not kill cells and, even if HIV did kill cells, it doesn’t infect enough cells to have a serious effect on a person’s health.


Duesberg’s paper went completely unchallenged in the scientific literature. This is a tacit admission among scientists that his arguments were, at the very least, compelling and most likely irrefutable.


Duesberg was perhaps the most credentialed, persistent, and effective critic of the AIDS dogma. Little did he know that this would put him at the top of Anthony Fauci’s hit list.


It was decided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that Duesberg’s ideas needed to be “contained” to prevent the public from hearing about them.


The Media Alert


Two months after Duesberg’s Cancer Research paper was published, Chuck Kline of the Office of the Secretary of HHS sent out a “Media Alert” on April 28, 1987:


“An NCI [National Cancer Institute] grantee scientist, Dr. Peter Duesberg of California/Berkeley, has published a paper in a scientific journal which concludes that the HTLV-III/HIV virus identified by Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier is not the cause of AIDS and that the disease is caused by “a still unidentified agent” which may not even be a virus.


Inexplicably, the paper was published in the March 1 addition [sic] of Cancer Research, and gives a non-specific credit to Dr. Robert Gallo and others, but nobody within the Department or the news media seems to have been aware of it until it was disclosed Monday, 4/27, by a gay publication in New York City. Dr. Duesberg has been an NCI grantee doing research in retroviruses and oncogenes for 17 years and is highly regarded. He is the recipient of an “Outstanding Researcher” award from the Department. The article apparently went through the normal pre-publication process and should have been flagged at NIH. Failing that, it should have caused a splash on publication nearly two months ago.


Playwright, gay activist and Department critic Larry Kramer is currently bringing it to the attention of the media, but it really hasn’t taken off yet. I know for instance he has talked to Tom Brokaw about it. There has been one call to CDC from Newsday and none to the press office so far.


This obviously has the potential to raise a lot of controversy (if this isn’t the virus, how do we know the blood supply is safe? How do we know anything about transmission? How could you all be so stupid and why should we ever believe you again?) and we need to be prepared to respond. I have already asked NIH public affairs to start digging into this.“


Chuck Kline


cc:


The Secretary The Under Secretary Chief of Staff Assistant Secretary for Health Surgeon General Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs The White House”


Silenced and Punished


Professor Duesberg steadfastly refused to recant and refused to remain silent. This has led to a thirty year campaign by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to try to silence and punish him.


Before daring to challenge HIV dogma, Prof. Duesberg was a highly regarded cancer researcher who received continual funding from the NIH and was even awarded the coveted “Outstanding Investigator” grant.


After the publication of his paper, he lost all government funding grants and has not had a new graduate student since the early 1990s. Some of the leading science journals have stopped publishing his work. He is tenured so can’t be sacked but the University of California at Berkeley has marginalized, humiliated, and punished him continually, attempting to make him leave voluntarily.


This pernicious stifling of debate and the persecution of dissenters has now become commonplace. It is now standard practice in the field of biomedical science as well as many other scientific disciplines. It happened to me.


Kary Mullis can’t find the evidence that HIV causes AIDS


Kary Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). When writing a paper in 1988 he needed a citation for the statement that “HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.” He was shocked to discover that no such evidence existed.


The French scientist Luc Montagnier won a Nobel prize in 2008 for “discovering” the non-existent HIV virus (Nobel prizes are often used to make a false idea unquestionable dogma). Kary Mullis asked him who to cite with regards to HIV being the probable cause of AIDS but even Montagnier didn’t know. In 2000, Montagnier himself came to reject the central plank of AIDS dogma, namely, that HIV causes AIDS.


Kary Mullis became an outspoken critic of Anthony Fauci’s mishandling of AIDS and of those advocating the use of PCR testing to detect viruses and diagnose infectious diseases.


Mullis gave an interview with the London Sunday Times in which he said:


“I can’t find a single virologist who will give me references which show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. On an issue as important as this, there should be a set of scientific documents somewhere, research papers written by people who are accessible, demonstrating this. But they are not available. If you ask a virologist for that information, you don’t get an answer, you get fury.” (source).














Kary Mullis


Kary Mullis died on August 7th, 2019 immediately prior to mass PCR testing being used in the creation of the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. Just 8 months after criticising the COVID-19 “vaccines”, on February 8, 2022, Luc Montagnier also died.


President Thabo Mbeki tries to get to the truth about AIDS


In 1999, the curious South African President Thabo Mbeki wondered why AIDS in Africa was so hugely different from AIDS in North America and Western Europe. He also wondered why AIDS was apparently still restricted to the same high risk groups in which it was first seen.


He set up the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in 2000 in order to try and answer these questions. He invited an international panel of experts to South Africa to provide a platform for deliberation, in order to inform and advise the South African government on the most appropriate course of action to follow with regards to AIDS.


Eminent specialists in the fields of AIDS/HIV, ranging from basic scientists, physicians, historians, and economists to public health professionals and policymakers were invited. He also invited people with AIDS and lay people to serve on the panel. A third of the AIDS Advisory Panel consisted of scientists and doctors from around the world who questioned the AIDS dogma. The ensuing two meetings of the advisory panel resulted in an extensive written report.


Proponents of AIDS orthodoxy and the US government were displeased about the inclusion of dissident scientists on this advisory panel.


The head of Médecins sans Frontières led furious HIV-positive people who marched through Durban, South Africa, between July 14 and July 20, 2000 in protest against scientists who dared to question the viral cause of AIDS. Some carried signs that said “One Bullet, One Dissident”. Some advocated that the dissidents be jailed, or that the U.S. constitution be changed to stop them from speaking.


The Aids Advisory Panel


The AIDS Advisory Panel made repeated requests for accurate, reliable data and statistics on the magnitude of the AIDS problem and HIV prevalence in South Africa, but the information was not forthcoming.


The first AIDS Advisory Panel open forum took place in May 2000 in Pretoria, the capital of South Africa. The AIDS establishment did everything they could to disrupt President Mbeki’s AIDS Advisory Panel.


Since the idea that AIDS is contagious and is caused by HIV had originated in U.S., the Clinton administration wanted to stop an open public debate about the causes of AIDS. In order not to embarrass the South African government by sending nobody, the US reluctantly sent a contingent of AIDS “experts”. AIDS czar Anthony Fauci was conspicuous by his absence.


Soon after the invited panelists had been seated three African-American “physicians” joined the panel at the last minute. According to people who were present at the event these men wore dark suits, had grim expressions and “carried themselves like FBI agents”. Unlike the invited panelists, there were no name-plates to identify these men who it transpired were sent by Clinton. They maintained a menacing presence, but these strangers didn’t contribute anything at all to the meeting.


When the meeting finally got underway, the mainstream panelists refused to participate and did everything they could to disrupt the conference.


Just as Peter Duesberg was about to give the first presentation there was a loud objection to the presentation of any actual data which was upheld by the Canadian moderator. This demolished even the pretense of a real objective scientific meeting.


The official report of the panel proceedings noted (unconvincingly):


“The nature and format of the deliberations of the panel could not allow the in-depth scientific argumentation that is necessary to resolve many of the differences over scientific issues of a fundamental nature.”


A Second Meeting


The second meeting of the Panel took place in Johannesburg.


At this meeting, senior South African government officials voiced their anger and frustration with the mainstream’s stonewalling during the first meeting. They were particularly angry about the boycotting of the internet discussions that were meant to set the agenda for the second meeting.


The mainstreamers had set up their own internet discussions, urging other members of the panel not to participate. They secretly engaged in an email campaign, leading to the Durban Declaration that was designed to discredit and neutralise the AIDS Advisory Panel. The Durban Declaration was released immediately before the second meeting of the Panel in June.


The Durban Declaration was published in the journal Nature a few days later, the document declared: “The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous, meeting the highest standards of science”. This declaration was intended to prevent any criticism of the AIDS orthodoxy and several of the AIDS panel members were signatories.


The furious South African government lifted the prohibition on presenting data and tried to shame the orthodox panelists into engaging in a real scientific debate for once.


The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) had permission from the government to show live coverage of the AIDS Panel meeting. But the orthodox panel members refused to participate if that was allowed, so the SABC were excluded. Instead, the entire proceedings of the Panel were video-recorded by the government.


Everyone was told the video and transcripts would be made available to the world at some point but this never happened. Letting the public witness, the mainstream “experts” stonewalling and disruptive behavior would be explosive, embarrassing, and damaging to the establishment.


Conclusions


Verbal abuse directed toward AIDS dissidents is commonplace. They are accused of being flat-earthers, denialists, murderers, psychopaths, unethical, and immoral with African blood dripping from their fingers. Those questioning the Covid-19 orthodoxy have, of course, received similar unwarranted abuse.


The AIDS Advisory Panel should have provided the perfect opportunity for the orthodoxy to show the government of South Africa and people of the world, convincing evidence that AIDS is contagious, sexually transmitted, and caused by a virus called HIV. They could have presented the evidence that the toxic anti-HIV drugs actually do more good than harm, as President Mbeki had specifically requested. They chose not to do any of that. Instead, they released the Durban Declaration.


Despite this history and the complete absence of scientific proof that AIDS is contagious, sexually transmitted, and depopulating Africa, the CDC, Fauci’s NIAID, the WHO etc., continue to insist that HIV causes AIDS. The same playbook has been deployed with regards to “SARS-CoV-2” and “Covid-19”.



References


1) AIDS & HIV: The Blueprint for the Perversion and Subversion of Medical Science. David Rasnick, Ph.D. https://doctors4covidethics.org/mrna-vaccine-toxicity/ p.135-p. 152.







7) Papadopulos-Eleopulos, E et al. HIV – A virus like no other. Posted at the Perth Group website July 12th 2017. www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf





11) Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Report. 2001. https: //archive.org/details/presidential-2001.


12) The Durban Declaration. Nature volume 406, pages 15–16 (2000)Published: 06 July 2000

留言


bottom of page