In my research on so-called epidemics and viruses over the last 30
years, I've examined a point very few people want to think about.
Does the virus being promoted actually exist?
It might seem absurd to ask that. "Well, of course it exists. Why else
would experts be saying it's causing disease and death? Why else are
they developing a vaccine?"
I don't buy that reply at face value. Never have, never will.
Let me illustrate with a short tale. ---Word goes out to an elite
intelligence agency that a stranger on a train is a spy, and he is
dangerous. He must be captured. The Agency sends a few people to board
the train.
Who is the spy? What does he look like? Unknown. The agents move from
car to car looking at passengers. From "past experience" in profiling
suspects, they decide their target is probably a man in sleeping car
100. They knock on his door. He opens it.
They place him under arrest.
The next thing the Agency knows, a week later, the ops director says,
"Boys, he was the one, we have our man. He was planning to blow up
bridges. Great work."
Evidence of guilt? Proof? Was the initial story about a spy on a train
even true? Answers unknown. But who cares? The job is done.
With a purported new epidemic disease, how do researchers find the man
on the train? What method do they use to isolate a unique virus that is
present in the bodies of people who are sick?
Various experts will offer various answers. In a moment, I'll present
an interview with a researcher who proposes a method. To sum up this
method in simplistic terms: you remove a tissue sample from a person
suspected of carrying a virus. Taking a tiny piece
of that sample, you place it into a sugar solution and spin it in a
centrifuge at high speed. The solution settles out, according to layers
of density and weight. You presumably know, from past experience,
which layer will contain particles of virus (if
they are there). From that layer, you remove a small sample. You look
at it under an electron microscope. You photograph what you see. If
you've found a virus, you should be able to observe many copies of it in
the photo. From analyzing these copies,
you should be able to tell what kind of virus you've found. This is a
very rough description of the process.
To announce to the world that you've found a virus that's causing a
rapidly spreading and dangerous epidemic, you should be sure of your
work.
You should have performed the above process on MANY, MANY supposed
human carriers of the virus, and you should have obtained the same
result in the overwhelming percentage of cases. And independent
researchers should be able to replicate your work.
In the Chinese epidemic, and in other past epidemics, I've seen no
evidence that this process of isolation was employed on many, many
patients with the same result---much less the independent confirmation.
Therefore, the whole inquiry and research are in doubt. Simply
announcing to the world that "the virus has been found" means nothing.
All right. Here are excerpts from an interview. It gets somewhat
technical. It was conducted by a brilliant independent journalist,
Christine Johnson. The interviewee is Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, "a
biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists
from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and
her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the
HIV/AIDS hypothesis..."
CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?
EP: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
[...]
CJ: Didn't Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups,
there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients.
[HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus.
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a
virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a
particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that
particle should look like a virus. Second, you
have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take
it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to
prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words,
that it can replicate.
CJ: Can't you just look down a microscope and say there's a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can't. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
[...]
CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to
produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same
density, a so-called "density-purified sample." Electron microscopy is
used to see if these density-purified samples consist
of objects which all have the same appearance -- in which case the
sample is an isolate -- and if this appearance matches that of a
retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true,
then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining
a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists
of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a
retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the
objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme]
and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you
rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical
property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell
cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was
utilized to purify the particles by a process
called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You
prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table
sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes
heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile,
you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If
you're right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and
pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you
decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place
a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at
extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles
present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution
until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents
them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the
density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the
same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they
stop, all together. To use virological jargon,
that's where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In
sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml.
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an
electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or
EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses
to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you've caught?
EP: Not only that. It's the only way to know if you've caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use
density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not
publish any Ems [electron microscope photos] of the material at 1.16
gm/ml...this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur
Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now
amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of
retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the
1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely
essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs [EMs] of
culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the
culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to
many other things, including the culture cells
and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles
which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all
belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs
of unpurified particles don't prove that those particles
are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and
Gallo -- or anyone since -- using the method presented at the 1973
meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that
exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to
pieces, find out what's inside, and then prove those particles are able
to make more of the same with the same constituents
when they're added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving
the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow
this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every
step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml
band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral
particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier's and Gallo's electron micrographs...are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures...
(end of interview excerpt)
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you'll see there is
every reason to question the existence of HIV, because the methods for
proving its existence were not followed.
Therefore, more questions emerge. How many other viruses have been
named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been
isolated or proved to exist?
Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at
any attempt to raise these issues. For them, "the science is settled."
Meaning: they don't want to think. They don't want to stir the waters.
I want to be clear about what I'm asserting here. There are very
serious questions about whether a variety of viruses have ever been
isolated, proven to exist,
and proven to be causing disease. An OPEN, lengthy,
ongoing, published debate needs to be undertaken among
researchers---including independent researchers.
These vital issues should never be concealed behind closed elite doors.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment