Before we get to Christine Johnson's interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC.,
was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a
foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called
COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does
HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer
was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing
contradictions I couldn't solve.
For example, in parts of Africa,
people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from
a new virus. All their "AIDS" conditions and symptoms could be
explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage
pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition;
hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines
and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations
and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually
obscured all these ongoing crimes.
Finally, in the summer of
1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV
caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I'm shortcutting a
great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the
picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in
EVERY group supposedly at "high-risk" for AIDS, their conditions and
symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do
with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella
label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and
create the illusion of a new and unique and single "pandemic."
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These
questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease
research---and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even
consider them.
Johnson interviews 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..."
Here I'm publishing and highlighting excerpts from
the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not
the easiest exercise you've ever done, but I believe the serious reader
can comprehend the vital essentials.
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 [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 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 doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving
its existence were not followed.
And so...as I've reported these
past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence
of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope
studies have never been done.
I kept the Christine Johnson
interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I
explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.
How many 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.
A
few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking
for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated
from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level
of certainty.
After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I've seen that false science occurs in levels.
The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.
SOURCES:
immunity[dot]org[dot]uk/articles/christine-johnson/
virusmyth[dot]com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm
blog[dot]nomorefakenews[dot]com/2020/08/10/covid-is-the-virus-real/
blog[dot]nomorefakenews[dot]com/2014/11/03/bombshell-scientist-finds-no-reliable-evidence-ebola-virus-ever-isolated-from-a-human-being/ |
No comments:
Post a Comment