David
Rasnick, PhD chemist, with a long history working in the pharmaceutical
industry (Abbott, Prototek, Arris), broke away from official science
and served as the president of Rethinking AIDS:
the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis. He was a
member of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel of South Africa.
Here is a recent explosive statement Rasnick made about SARS-CoV-2 and HIV. Digesting it brings about a breakthrough revelation:
“Viruses
are unstable, RNA [e.g, SARS-Cov-2] viruses especially. They are so
unstable, there is no such thing as an un-mutated RNA virus. They are
like snow flakes, no two are identical.”
“HIV is an RNA virus with 9,800 nucleotides. You can download the HIV Sequence Compendium here:”
“In the Preface it says:”
"’The
number of [genetic] sequences in the HIV database is still increasing.
In total, at the end of 2017, there were 812,586 sequences in the HIV
Sequence Database, an increase of 8.5% since the previous year.”
“None
of the sequences of the world destroying [sarcasm], computer generated
coronavirus with its 30,000 or so nucleotides, are identical.”
“The
virus maniacs use computers to compare the menagerie of sequences to
come up with ‘A Consensus Sequence’ for HIV, Coronavirus, and all the
rest. The consensus sequence exists in two places: in computers and in
strings of RNA synthesized in the lab.”
“Even
consensus sequences are not stable. Different groups, using a variety
of computer algorithms will invariably come up with different ‘consensus
sequences’.”
The implications of Rasnick’s statement are enormous.
First of all, forget about the idea that SARS-Cov-2 has one genetic sequence.
And
these multiple sequences aren’t assembled by looking through a magic
microscope. They’re put together by computer programs which have pre-set
algorithms.
In other words, the sequences are built by ASSUMPTIONS (not evidence) embedded in the algorithms.
ANY
vaccine developed for SARS-Cov-2 (even if you believe in the theory of
how vaccines are supposed to work) would face the task of producing
immunity to an ever-mutating virus---not just one mutated strain, but
endless numbers of mutations.
You
would have an analog to seasonal flu, in which researchers make a guess
about what the new version of the virus will look like every year and
develop a new vaccine for that guess.
How
well is this working out? Public health agencies report that, each and
every year, there are a BILLION cases of seasonal flu, worldwide.
Going
still deeper, if the genetic sequences of the ever-mutating viruses are
not discovered, but concocted via computer programs, how likely is it
that a vaccine utilizing that “data” would work?
And
at the bottom of the whole pile of guesswork, is, of course, the
realization that, if these genetic sequences are concocted---where is
the ACTUAL isolated virus? WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT IT EXISTS?
Where
is it, when, as I’ve been reporting for months now, researchers twist
and torture the meaning of “isolated,” so that it indicates “the virus
is somewhere in a soup in a dish in a lab”---definitely UN-isolated.
Such is the “science” of modern virology.
But
don’t worry, be happy, the test “for the coronavirus” must be accurate,
the case and death numbers must be accurate, and the consequent
lockdowns which are destroying national economies and hundreds of
millions of lives are necessary…right?
Sure. Why not? Let’s say it’s all, all right. Everybody can go back to sleep and let tyrants demolish Earth civilization.
OR, you can REBEL against the Police State built on a house-of-cards hoax called “science.”
As
opposed to “the virus,” liberty and freedom are quite real. People can
feel them in their bones, in their minds and souls. Even and especially
if they are slaves, they can feel them.
Speaking of whether a virus actually exists, here is an article I’ve reposted several times:
DOES HIV EXIST? AN EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW
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.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
No comments:
Post a Comment