Fauci's been a complete disaster for decades. He's probably responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined. Thanks for sharing Celia's info. so I can support her.
Brilliant discussion with two of my absolute favorite authors. What an illuminating synopsis of the transmogrification of medical policies, of culture, of established norms of science, the media indoctrination and unprecedented profiteering that led up to this moment. Thank you for shouting it from the rooftops! Let's revel in the unraveling!
Shining a light where the "elites" want darkness to rule. Should be required listening for our 435 Congress critters and Senators and.....their staff. Hopefully Kennedy will soon be kicking @$$ and taking names. Fauci should be in jail for the rest of his life-----hopefully under the same conditions the J6ers had to endure.
James Kunstler is such a great interviewer where he gives his guest time to Speak in further detail! Journalist Celia Farber is always on the Cutting Edge of the top Stories the last 40 Years!
When Pompeo got up on the podium and announced that we were in a "LIVE EXERCISE" (a distinct military term), Trump said, "Well you should have told us." But he mumbled it, and he knew, but like Celia said, he did not know the extent of the grift.
Wouldn't say that because, as Celia emphasizes, it was the pressure from the activists that caused the AZT fast approval. It's very complicated with Gallo being a shady subject who basically stole the viral sample from Montagnier who rushed his claim of "discovery" which was green-lighted in large part due to the activists pushing hard against the evangelicals who were crucial to the Reagan admin. They were making statements that the people dying deserved it for their lifestyles so the Reagan admin was under immense political pressure to place the blame on an external cause to diffuse the homophobic attacks and find a resolution. Unlike covid there was no big conspiracy to create the HIV/AIDS paradigm but there was opportunism and politics, and part of the opportunism was also the CDC having their funding on the chopping block due to their cancer research failures so this is where Fauci comes in as a prime opportunist, along with Gallo, to save the big federal funding $$$. And that's where it all began for Fauci who proved himself to be able to lie about anything with a straight face.
Wonderful conversation, one of my favourites. I’d like to pose a question regarding a point that was brought up … given the sheer weight of the entrenched bureaucracy arrayed against rational thought, truth etc, how the hell was RFK Jr allowed to assume his new role? Celia mentioned sorcery and spells more than once, is it as simple as the “spell” has been broken, has the dam of corrupt bullshit started to break or are we just living through another bloody psyop?
Good question, and as it got closer I thought he either wouldn't get confirmed or it would require a recess appointment. I think we'll have to see how things proceed, but the fact that these crucial picks were all confirmed is encouraging in that I think Trump must have leveraged some significant pressure on some of the key RINOs in order to accomplish this. It shows that the GOP is Trump's party right now and I think we're going to see significant changes, however, will big things like the vaccine liability shield be withdrawn or will pharma's ability to advertise on TV be removed? Will the whole mRNA platform still be pushed? That's a worrisome one. How radical and sweeping will the changes be in reality?
Jim, I read "The Real Anthony Fauci" when it came out. There was a lot about AIDS in it but I didn't spend too much time on that, wanting to get to the COVID "stuff". I'm glad you are following up on this scam now, and with a splendid lady, from what I hear talking here. It's hard to believe isn't it? Fauci has been up to no good for a long, long time. And he only recently lost his "privileges" of having personal protection. I wonder if that makes him anxious. If anyone in the public eye, past or present, deserves some time in a penitentiary it's Old Tony.
My first KunstlerCast! Very interesting conversation. Mr. Kunstler, you have a knack for asking the questions I (and I assume many of your subscribers) most want answers to. Thank you, and Celia Farber as well.
I think it is important that I start by stating that I very much appreciate your articles and interviews as they have given me much to contemplate in these difficult times. However, I do find many problems with this particular interview and I do intend to tackle each of these problems, one by one, in my own article… In general I agree that covid was a scam designed to gain control over the masses by elite factions. I think it is vitally important that we understand exactly how we got to this point in our history.
I would assert that when Celia Farber, backed up by Peter Duesberg, states that HIV is not the cause of AIDS that she conveniently ignores decades of evidence that supports the HIV theory and the efficacy of AIDS anti-retroviral treatment strategies. She also conveniently fails to site any studies in support of her counter-narrative that AIDs is caused by drug use and other lifestyle choices such as promiscuous sex.
I was diagnosed with having the HIV retrovirus in 1985, the first year that the test was available. At the time, this was considered a death sentence. I went on with my life as best I could. I graduated with an associate degree in nursing in 1992. It wasn’t until the year 2000 when I was suffering from recurring upper respiratory infections that I began finding it very difficult to maintain a full-time work schedule. My CD4 counts were down to 120. The normal is over 400. I was started on Viramune, an NNRTI, and two other anti-retroviral medications. At the time, AIDS patients had two main options for the AIDS “cocktail”. The two options had to consist of either an NNRTI or a protease inhibitor (PI). I did not tolerate either of these medications and my medication compliance was poor. For many years I watched my CD4 counts slowly climb during periods when I was able to take my medications at a rate of about 70%. My counts would subsequently fall when I would totally stop my medications. During this time there was also a direct correlation between my viral load count and medication compliance. Due to my poor compliance, some of my drug options for assembling an effective cocktail were lost as they were no longer effective. It was not until 2007 that a new class of drugs, integrase inhibitors, were made available. They were not rushed to market. Even though I complained of side effects and clearly explained to my doctor that this is why my medication compliance was low, I was allowed to suffer. It was not until 2012 when my doctor finally relented and started me on Issentress, an integrase inhibitor.
This was a life changing event. For the first time ever I was able to maintain 100% medication compliance. Over a period of years I have watched my CD4 numbers climb to where they have come very close to normal. There are 100,000s of other AIDS patients, across the country, who can share similar stories. You could say to me that correlation does not mean causation, but I would counter, correctly, that when it is statistically significant it does. This statistical evidence is available and is conclusive. Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber and others have yet to present a consistent counter explanation that has any statistical evidence whatsoever. Instead all they have is a very vague and incoherent theory that lifestyle choices explain the advent of AIDS. When we consider the various sub-groups affected by AIDS; the gay community, those who share IV needles, hemophiliacs, and those given contaminated blood transfusions, the common thread is without question contaminated blood not lifestyle choices or drug use.
Let me be clear I am open to the idea of many conspiracy theories and even subscribe to some of the more unlikely ones, but what Farber and Duesberg are proposing goes far beyond any conspiracy yet proven in the history of man.
RFK jr. himself remains agnostic on the issue of the actual cause of AIDS. How he acts in the coming weeks and months is intimately tied to how he understands the exact origins of covid and HIV. This is an important conversation and it is vitally important that people remain objective and weigh ALL of the evidence and not just choose the bits that suits their preconceived notions.
In science, one is not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about cause and effect. This has never been done for the HIV/AIDS relationship as Peter Duesberg and many others have pointed out. There are lots of false positives in the PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The fact is that many people were put on a treatment protocol who had no symptoms or signs of immunological dysfunction at all. Many whose immunological systems went into decline might have become ill and died from the "treatment"---particularly those who were given AZT. Peter Duesberg's speculation about "lifestyle" causation is just that---a speculation based on the high correlation between AIDS and IV drug use and/or promiscuous homosexuality. He has no data to substantiate that theory and doesn't pretend to do so. I don't think anyone with common sense thinks there was a conspiracy to spread AIDS. Some have pointed out that many of the early cases might be traced to studies that were undertaken in a few large cities to evaluate an experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B in the late 1970s. These studies specifically recruited volunteers who engaged in homosexual relations with a multiplicity of partners as the Hepatitis B was a major health problem for that demographic group.
The lifestyle of promiscuity and heavy drug use, which was true of a small sliver of the gay community, was the prevailing thesis with regard to the appearance of strange manifestations like Karposi's sarcoma in very young men. It was largely politics that led to the "out" of finding an external cause to take attention away from the lifestyle thesis in large part due to the fact of real bigotry in the Reagan administration's base of evangelicals whose basic position was that these men deserved to die based on their sinful lifestyles. There was immense pressure for the administration to find a solution by 1984 due to continuous demonstrations in D.C. because of increased sickness and death.
A key part of the drug picture had little to do with IV drug use, but rather the use of nitrite inhalers, aka "poppers", being used in mass quantities as part of the relaxant the men used for anal sex. Again, this was the extreme hardcore young men partying all the time and they might literally have to 10-20 partners in a night or a weekend, doing poppers, maybe coke or amphetamines as well, and then coming down with STDs and getting on antibiotics and doing this week in and week out until they entirely decimated their immune systems due to living in this fast lane. I'm forgetting the other early prominent disease other than Karposi's sarcoma that was highly unusual in someone young, but I believe it related to lung cancer, or serious damage to the esophagus and lungs that could easily be hypothesized as connected with the extensive use of poppers. Many men in the gay community understood this over time as the illness and death increased and the use of poppers gradually declined as word got out within the communities in the big cities. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis became dogma so the lifestyle thesis turned into a fairly early example of a politically incorrect topic that couldn't be talked about by media but within these communities a lot of people got it and those particular illnesses declined.
You make it sound as if AIDS is no longer an issue. Poppers and hardcore lifestyles have never been shown to cause AIDS or any of the related syndromes. If I stop taking my AIDS medications my CD4 counts will plummet and my viral load counts go from undetectable to exponentially high numbers all without my doctor or lab techs having any way to know that I am presently off of my medications. There are 100,000s, if not millions, of people around the world whose blood work does the same. None of what you have said explains how this can possibly be. You are simply denying the lived experience of 100,000s of people.
You're just ignoring everything I've said and throwing out a strawman argument. If you aren't willing to do deep research and investigate then you'll be easily manipulated into what institutional authorities claim and you'll continue to believe it on faith. That is, if you're not a troll of some sort playing a part that just tosses out defamatory claims of "denialism" as you do here. Such statements are either very amateurish or just based on basic ignorance. Go watch "House of Numbers" and a host of many other documentaries and read books that don't affirm your position and biases so you can begin to face up to all the lies you've been told and begin to free your mind if you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's clear you've never genuinely taken in different viewpoints if you mean what you say here. Good luck.
A strawman fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.
I am not engaging in a strawman fallacy. I am arguing that HIV is the cause of AIDS and as evidence I am presenting myself as a case study that provides solid evidence in support of my argument. I have defamed no one. I think you are much closer to earning that accusation by claiming that I could be a troll. Everything that I have seen with my lab work, and my doctor supports the fact that HIV causes AIDS. I have simply asked for you to explain to me how it is when I stop my medication my CD4 counts plummet and my viral load explodes. Has my doctor misdiagnosed me?
Doctors are totally indoctrinated and yours likely is. "Viral load" indicates PCR which is not a diagnostic test and is utterly meaningless. CD4 may or may not have any meaning. I can ask "do you feel worse without the medication?" but the problem with that could be, and I don't know regarding such medications but I'd bet it could be true, is that you may have a dependency so it may not be wise to just go off without alternative naturopathic means of boosting immunity. It's mainly about healthy immune function-- wouldn't worry about all the hocus pocus of tests and numbers as opposed to internally measurements of health. Tons of people got off HIV meds and that's when they got better (famous example of Magic Johnson who's been alive more than 30 years-- shame he doesn't talk about it). You may be getting immune-oriented therapeutics that are far less toxic than stuff from 30-40 years ago, but that doesn't mean drugs have to be a lifelong treatment and that's our medical model-- sick people for life. There are better ways to boost immunity over time, but all I can say is do due diligence to research as I am not a practitioner or expert. I just know pharma controls medicine and their intent is profit by maintaining a constant supply of patients to profit off of.
Actually not at all true. I have seen the documentaries and I read the real Anthony Faucci. I have also pointed out that even RFK jr remains agnostic on the question of HIV causing AIDS. If it weren't for that I might not be so patient. All the things you are accusing I could say about you and more. You have not explained how my lab work shows a direct correlation between my medication compliance and my CD4 counts. It is the collapse of CD4 counts that leads to all of the syndromes related to AIDS that is a fact.
It seems to me you need to denounce anyone who does not affirm what you wish to believe is true without any actual evidence of anything but claims of truth that amount to the same ol' appeals to authority. Lab tests are proof of something? What? a lab test claims identification of a substance and that equals proof? Of what exactly? Nothing causal. CD4 counts? People can have regular CD4 counts and be sick with "AIDS", as in, one of the numerous conditions that are only AIDS with verification from an HIV 'test' that readily admits that the test itself does not confirm the presence of the virus and needs further confirmation. i.e., 'we think you have a piece or pieces of DNA that may be what we now call HIV but it's not conclusive of anything.' Or, a person can have low CD4 counts and actually be healthy. Those are facts that individuals have attested to. Proves nothing either way. Why is it that TB becomes AIDS when taking an unreliable diagnostic that is interpreted (yes, tests are interpreted) to exhibit HIV, but is only TB when there is no interpretation of HIV present? How is it that numerous people over the years take HIV tests and from one to the next in relatively short time frames they get both positive and negative results, or indeterminate results? It's illustrative about the testing and that results are unreliable.
Again, good luck, and perhaps look into the fraudulence of Robert Gallo and his HIV studies in "Fear of the Invisible." If you really wish to know you would investigate rather than demanding others conform to what I can only perceive as your indoctrinated line of thinking that act as shackles upon your consciousness. None but ourselves can free our minds.
The other disease common in AIDS is probably pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and was probably the major cause of death for those suffering from the disease. I first learned of the experimental Hepatitis B vaccine a few months ago when, in a related post, someone posted a video of Dr. Alan Cantwell and a link to his book "AIDS and the Doctors of Death". Dr. Cantwell was a dermatologist who had a special interest in Kaposi's sarcoma and was a lifelong member of the gay community in New York and Los Angeles. As a doctor and a gay man, he was well aware of what was going on in the gay communities in large urban cities and can speak with more knowledge and experience about it. His book was written in 1988 so it doesn't incorporate any further knowledge learned after that time. He has an entire chapter on the politics of AIDS.
In my opinion, the drugs and promiscuous sex had little or nothing to do with AIDS. It didn't explain the peculiar timing of the outbreak or the subsequent course of the disease over time. All those activities were going on both before and afterwards. Perhaps not with the intensity of the practices during the peak but it still is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. But the time course fits very well with the large outbreak coming soon after the introduction of the experimental vaccine in that very thin slice of the population that were selected to test the vaccine. Probably the later cases were largely due to AZT which was commonly prescribed and also available through black market sources in the gay community. As you are probably aware, AZT was developed in the 1960s as a drug to treat cancer and was taken off the market when it became evident that the toxicity to the bone marrow killed the experimental animals.
Yes, pneumocystis pneumonia was it. Thank you. That and Kaposi's sarcoma were the early diseases that were shocking to doctors in younger men. I don't think I heard about the Hep B vaccine though I have heard of the book but not familiar with it. There have been other hypotheses put out there as alternatives, beyond the more obvious extreme early cases, and one which comes to mind is the idea of funneling the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome cases under the AIDS umbrella as well because the growing issue of CFS was basically being ignored and/or dismissed as a psychological issue wherein the institutional establishment was essentially telling everyone there was nothing really wrong with them physically and it was all in their heads. Similar to their later tactics to a lot of vaccine injuries which was on steroids with the covid shots due to massive pressures to deny any wrong with those shots.
I believe a good case can be made for the CFS hypothesis in terms of immune deficiency and signs of auto-immune disorders that likely had varying causes regarding toxicity whatever the sources. That is after the initial wave and probably the latter half of the 80s. Certainly AZT killed a lot of people and I believe "Dallas Buyers Club" is largely about this in terms of gay men getting access to medications from Mexico that were being suppressed and denied in the U.S.
I completely disagree, however, that drugs and promiscuousness had little to do with what became labelled AIDS. First, keep in mind that AIDS is just a label, a "syndrome" that was initially attributed to something unknown until the magic virus was "discovered" by Gallo. It was initially pretty limited to those severe types of cases in young gay men and really wasn't a term referring to a large umbrella of issues until they needed to drum up new "AIDS" cases by adding a bunch of new diseases in a couple of different waves which wound up being, what?, 20-25 so-called diseases "caused" by HIV? By the time they were doing this it was all scare tactics and propaganda to boost the gravy train of the HIV=AIDS scam that was just beginning to drum up massive profits for the expensive therapeutics. The issue of extreme promiscuity isn't really about contagion through the acts of anal sex so much as it was about the contracting of STDs on a continual basis so that the men contracting an STD kept going on and off antibiotics, destroying their microbiome, continuing to party and take the drugs, with the poppers being the key factor for pneumocystis pneumonia, getting an STD again, going back on antibiotics, and so on until they had totally trashed their immune systems when they were still in their 20s. These men put the indulgences of 70s rock 'n' roll bands and their groupie parties to shame. So yes, that was primarily the early years and with awareness within the communities in the cities behaviors changed and it tapered off, but this was undoubtedly an important factor.
I think I did mention "House of Numbers" so if you haven't seen that I'd highly recommend it. Good doc. and they do touch on this issue.
While I appreciate your observation about the requirements of science, this does not change the fact that I, and countless others, will become ill with AIDS without the benefit of anti-retroviral medications. If this is not an argument against what Duesberg, Faber and others profess then I don't know what is. If you want to deny my reality that is fine, but it does not change the facts. Even though Faber assisted with RFK's book, there clearly was not enough evidence for RFK to come down on the side of not believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS. If you don't agree that HIV causes AIDS then do you think that it is not important that we have a viable alternative hypothesis? Street drugs and lifestyle choices have never been shown to cause AIDS. I am not asking Duesberg to prove a negative. I am asking him to prove an alternative theory that he himself proposed. Is there no desire to find an answer to such an important question? Or is it that once the theory does not align with one's preconceived notions then we can move on regardless of the human toll?
Last night, I watched David Brock's speech from the ARC conference in London. He claimed that Trump had cut the funding for anti-retroviral medications to African countries and that he (Brock) was already witnessing the fallout. I think it is a bit soon for all of that to already be happening, but if Trump has stopped the funding there could be serious consequences to follow that will result in a loss of confidence in any further initiatives on Trump's part.
For the record I am pulling for Trump and dislike Brock.
It is not an argument against what Duesberg et al profess because they don't profess anything except to point out that there is zero scientific evidence that a retrovirus called HIV causes AIDS. They are not obligated to present an alternative. Duesberg chooses to present an alternative but does not claim any true scientific validity for it---i.e. it is simply an alternative hypothesis. For the record, I don't agree with his hypothesis because the "lifestyle" factors he mentions are not limited to that period when AIDS was prevalent. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but an alternative that makes more sense was that the whole thing started with the experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B which was given to precisely the same small slice of the population that suffered the brunt of the AIDS breakout. In other words, this experimental vaccine may have caused immune system destruction in those given the vaccine and many subsequent deaths were caused by the extensive use of AZT as treatment for HIV positive people who had no signs or symptoms of clinical AIDS. I should repeat again that this is simply an alternative theory and would require some scientific corroboration in order to be accepted. That process would start with obtaining the records of the initial studies with the experimental vaccine and then obtain as much follow-up medical data on the participants as possible. It would be a difficult and time-consuming process but worthwhile if it could shed more light on the subject.
The reason AIDS is no longer heard about, and some here even seem to think has gone away, is that it is being successfully treated with HIV medications. I personally know someone who died in 2021 due to their immune system collapsing as a direct result of poor medication compliance. They did not use street drugs and they were under the care of doctor for the last 15 years of their life.
What part of "there is no scientifically credible evidence that HIV causes or , in any way, is related to AIDS" didn't you understand? Peter Duesberg, the world's leading expert on retroviruses, explained in a number of articles and books why retroviruses could not cause disease.
You may not agree but leading "discredited" expert on retroviruses would be a more accurate description. The medical community as a whole no longer takes him seriously.
What part of my story did you not understand. When I stop my medications my CD4 counts plummet to dangerously low levels and my viral load explodes from non-detectable. And don't tell me about PCR testing. PCR testing may not be "diagnostic" but it is legitimate when used properly. It was not used properly during Covid.
That link is part extra material from the film "House of Numbers" which is a documentary I would highly recommend which is actually available on youtube. There have been several previous to that film that also expose the lack of a scientific basis for the thesis, though I do think 'House of Numbers' is likely the best one.
Excuse me for being blunt, but it seems to be you haven't really researched this topic in much depth. Robert Gallo is a scoundrel and a fraud and any historical research will bear that out. The man who was allowed to announce a 'viral cause' of AIDS (a syndrome, not a disease) in a famous press conference not only had failed to publish a single paper on the subject at the time, but it was later learned that his "discovery" was a culture sample that he stole from the rightful discoverer, Luc Montaigner, and it was not called "HIV" at the time. That moniker came later. Montaigner, who would later get credit and receive the Nobel prize, never made any claims of his discovery being a cause of AIDS though he was clearly excited about the possibility of a link. He would eventually admit publicly that he did not think that HIV was a direct cause of AIDS, and like many careful scientists who didn't wish to have their entire careers destroyed by the corrupted orthodoxy, he stated that their must be unknown "co-factors" that had yet to be discovered that had to be essential. Duesberg just had the guts early on to say retroviruses are dormant and they do not cause illness and just came out and stated the obvious that HIV basically doesn't do much of anything. Where did it come from? It, like many other micro-organisms in our system, was "discovered" because of improved technologies and because of the motivations of scientists to find things that happen to have always been present in our biology and then attribute new labels to them in hopes of becoming famous with a great discovery. That's merely my prevailing thesis.
"Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts is an excellent and fairly inexpensive work of investigative journalism that is a must read on the topic as well. She basically exposes the fact all of Gallo's (the faux discoverer of a viral cause) work was fraudulent. The foundations of the "science" which was announced to the world without a single paper being published was later proven to be fraudulent and Gallo was kicked out of his government position. Unfortunately, the numerous investigations into him and his work were eventually closed down as the great HIV-AIDS dogmatic behemoth had already been unleashed on the world as a major industry that could not be stopped.
So Gallo's reputation amidst actual scientists was destroyed, but there was no real media coverage of any of this and he was unceremoniously expelled after the damage was done-- pretty much par for the course. By the way, he also made a small fortune shortly after his announcement of "discovery" by immediately patenting a fraudulent HIV test (or whatever label at the time) and I believe he may have even done this prior to his AIDS papers being published.
Well, if you haven't research the topic then why are you saying, "Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground," when yo don't know what you're talking about?
I gave you plenty to follow up on and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a "take away." Watch "House of Numbers" on youtube. Good, fairly short documentary. You can learn plenty just starting there.
Yes exactly! We can claim that a theory has not been proven to our satisfaction but that hardly means the original question has somehow gone away. In the meantime for those who remain skeptical, I have provided a statistical means to prove that HIV does in fact cause AIDS. That offer has been ignored because there would seem to be an agenda to deny any argument that does not lead to an already given conclusion.
There is another writer on Substack, I have forgotten her name and no longer follow her, she recommended a fascinating book called Dr. Mary's Monkey that provides some interesting clues. It is possible that a retrovirus was made to be toxic with intent to be used against Fidel Castro in the early 60s. I had considered writing an article on the book but it has nothing to do with astrology and at any rate my stamina is in very short supply lately.
Are the cocktails of drugs truly anti-retroviral? Or do they perform immunotherapy as well? I ask because if HIV is the sole retrovirus to cause harm, could it be that a retrovirus is present because of AIDS, not because it causes AIDS?
The Cocktail of drugs causes the HIV retrovirus to become dormant in the body. This is demonstrated with viral load testing. If a patient has built up immunity to the drugs due to poor compliance the viral load will remain high. Tests can then be done to determine which cocktail of drugs will work. When the patient is switched to the new regimen the viral load will drop to non-detectable and the patient regains their health. All of this has been demonstrated in clinics across the world for the past 30 years and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV in fact causes AIDS.
In short, I will simply challenge your claim that there is "conclusive evidence" with regard to HIV causing AIDS thesis. Scientists repeating the assumption of "HIV is the probably cause of AIDS" and perhaps transforming 'probable' into a presumption of 'definite' is the installation of dogma which has no basis in any experiments anywhere on the planet. Have you watched "House of Numbers" or many other documentaries on the matter which precede that film which came out, I think, in 2009? Have you read Duesberg's book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"? Expensive to buy now but a public library might have a copy. Have you seen Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR who stated clearly it is not a diagnostic tool) talk about his process of realizing there was no proof behind the HIV causes AIDS thesis? Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJ_Sw0iwMI&ab_channel=DissociatedPress
This link is part of additional material to "House of Numbers" that was not in the film.
If you are not familiar with any of this, and really the entire historical, political, and social milieu that has been unearthed about the topic at this point than I would have to suggest that you've been programmed into this dogma and are perhaps too well-entrenched to accept what I am saying or to be swayed to really do a deep dive that challenges your own assumptions and biases that have been fed to you for decades. There is a wealth of material on the matter that exposes the HIV-AIDS hypothesis as a very flimsy thesis.
One other very important recommendation if you do decide to research more deeply would be to pick up a copy of Janine Roberts', "Fear of the Invisible", which is an excellent work of investigative journalism that carries the reader along her process of discovery that ultimate leads to the understanding that all of Robert Gallo's papers on the HIV-AIDS thesis (wasn't called HIV at the time) were fraudulent. In fact, Gallo's announcement on the alleged cause of AIDS was made without any of his papers even being published to that point.
Stunning! I thought I had a solid grasp of the criminality... but having it tied directly to it's beginning - the AIDS/AZT conspiracy - really hit home! The WORLD needs a Nuremberg 2.0 sans another Operation Paperclip! They all need to swing from a hemp rope.
What a great interview. Celia Farber needs to unpack and reveal the meaning of her
EMF Wuhan comment. JKH and CF need to spend a weekend together and watch
"The Strecker Memorandum"( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHUBHWEYiFxMXTDwltKYtPE48C1GqzT98). Robert B. Strecker MD,Ph.D died April 2019 in a "car crash". His brother ,Theodore Strecker JD, was suicided in the mid 1980's. Here is the formula. HIV= BLV+VV....Human Immunodeficiency Virus is made from Bovine Leukemia Virus (cows) hybridized with Visna Virus ( from Sheep ) and grown in human tissue cell culture to the point it would only infect human tissue. HIV is destructive in cell culture (kills all the cells) BLV and others are proliferative(cancer like) in cell culture. The new HIV was deployed via the Hepatitis B vaccine project for gay males who were non monogamous only. The number of sex partners was quite large for the participants, making it difficult to trace its origin. Not that anybody tried. The "Memorandum" is a distillation RBS research at the time(1987). At the end of the video, there is a Q&A session. I was a participant asking questions, along with the producer and his executive officer, and the moderator of the video. Dr. Strecker sent certified letters to all members of the House and Senate and White House in 1983 declaring that the USA had been attacked by a bioweapon. Crickets were the response( similar to CF's zombie comment in the above podcast.) He attempted to direct sell the Memorandum on late night TV...all TV broadcast owners refused to allow him to advertise his video. HIV is as natural as the hydrogen bomb. The polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40(Dr. Mary's Monkey) 100 million doses were administered to USA children. C19 Vaccine contains the cancer promoting sequence of SV40 and the envelope gene of HIV, along with 3 other HIV genes. We have been fucked at the drive through while attempting to order dinner. jjadams md contact jams999@protonmail.com
Dr. Mary's Monkey is a fascinating read. I wonder if there might be more about that story in the JFK documents or elsewhere that has never been released. I think there are more than a few theories regarding the origins of HIV. One that I've heard is that since HIV originated with monkeys, that it may have crossed over into the polio vaccine since the vaccine was grown in monkey kidney cells. Also, could it be possible that HIV was a result of the high voltage experiments that were being conducted in New Orleans as revealed in Dr. Mary's Monkey?
Fauci's been a complete disaster for decades. He's probably responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined. Thanks for sharing Celia's info. so I can support her.
Danny Huckabee
Maybe not THAT many, but LOTS. But that doesn't even mention the pain and hardship of those that didn't die.
Brilliant discussion with two of my absolute favorite authors. What an illuminating synopsis of the transmogrification of medical policies, of culture, of established norms of science, the media indoctrination and unprecedented profiteering that led up to this moment. Thank you for shouting it from the rooftops! Let's revel in the unraveling!
Shining a light where the "elites" want darkness to rule. Should be required listening for our 435 Congress critters and Senators and.....their staff. Hopefully Kennedy will soon be kicking @$$ and taking names. Fauci should be in jail for the rest of his life-----hopefully under the same conditions the J6ers had to endure.
Oooo, that would be nice!
James Kunstler is such a great interviewer where he gives his guest time to Speak in further detail! Journalist Celia Farber is always on the Cutting Edge of the top Stories the last 40 Years!
Thank you for another wonderful conversation. You are both helping to unravel the major gaslighting job that’s been done to the world.
Celia is awesome. I follow her on substack. She and others warned about Fauci and no one listened... how sad.
When Pompeo got up on the podium and announced that we were in a "LIVE EXERCISE" (a distinct military term), Trump said, "Well you should have told us." But he mumbled it, and he knew, but like Celia said, he did not know the extent of the grift.
Such a great conversation.
So HIV was unleashed to push forward fast track drug development. One World Order!!!
Wouldn't say that because, as Celia emphasizes, it was the pressure from the activists that caused the AZT fast approval. It's very complicated with Gallo being a shady subject who basically stole the viral sample from Montagnier who rushed his claim of "discovery" which was green-lighted in large part due to the activists pushing hard against the evangelicals who were crucial to the Reagan admin. They were making statements that the people dying deserved it for their lifestyles so the Reagan admin was under immense political pressure to place the blame on an external cause to diffuse the homophobic attacks and find a resolution. Unlike covid there was no big conspiracy to create the HIV/AIDS paradigm but there was opportunism and politics, and part of the opportunism was also the CDC having their funding on the chopping block due to their cancer research failures so this is where Fauci comes in as a prime opportunist, along with Gallo, to save the big federal funding $$$. And that's where it all began for Fauci who proved himself to be able to lie about anything with a straight face.
You've got to hand it to Them, they are great planners.
Wonderful conversation, one of my favourites. I’d like to pose a question regarding a point that was brought up … given the sheer weight of the entrenched bureaucracy arrayed against rational thought, truth etc, how the hell was RFK Jr allowed to assume his new role? Celia mentioned sorcery and spells more than once, is it as simple as the “spell” has been broken, has the dam of corrupt bullshit started to break or are we just living through another bloody psyop?
Good question, and as it got closer I thought he either wouldn't get confirmed or it would require a recess appointment. I think we'll have to see how things proceed, but the fact that these crucial picks were all confirmed is encouraging in that I think Trump must have leveraged some significant pressure on some of the key RINOs in order to accomplish this. It shows that the GOP is Trump's party right now and I think we're going to see significant changes, however, will big things like the vaccine liability shield be withdrawn or will pharma's ability to advertise on TV be removed? Will the whole mRNA platform still be pushed? That's a worrisome one. How radical and sweeping will the changes be in reality?
Jim, I read "The Real Anthony Fauci" when it came out. There was a lot about AIDS in it but I didn't spend too much time on that, wanting to get to the COVID "stuff". I'm glad you are following up on this scam now, and with a splendid lady, from what I hear talking here. It's hard to believe isn't it? Fauci has been up to no good for a long, long time. And he only recently lost his "privileges" of having personal protection. I wonder if that makes him anxious. If anyone in the public eye, past or present, deserves some time in a penitentiary it's Old Tony.
I'd recommend reading it because it's crucial to understanding where we are now, along with the vaccine liability shield from 1986.
My first KunstlerCast! Very interesting conversation. Mr. Kunstler, you have a knack for asking the questions I (and I assume many of your subscribers) most want answers to. Thank you, and Celia Farber as well.
I think it is important that I start by stating that I very much appreciate your articles and interviews as they have given me much to contemplate in these difficult times. However, I do find many problems with this particular interview and I do intend to tackle each of these problems, one by one, in my own article… In general I agree that covid was a scam designed to gain control over the masses by elite factions. I think it is vitally important that we understand exactly how we got to this point in our history.
I would assert that when Celia Farber, backed up by Peter Duesberg, states that HIV is not the cause of AIDS that she conveniently ignores decades of evidence that supports the HIV theory and the efficacy of AIDS anti-retroviral treatment strategies. She also conveniently fails to site any studies in support of her counter-narrative that AIDs is caused by drug use and other lifestyle choices such as promiscuous sex.
I was diagnosed with having the HIV retrovirus in 1985, the first year that the test was available. At the time, this was considered a death sentence. I went on with my life as best I could. I graduated with an associate degree in nursing in 1992. It wasn’t until the year 2000 when I was suffering from recurring upper respiratory infections that I began finding it very difficult to maintain a full-time work schedule. My CD4 counts were down to 120. The normal is over 400. I was started on Viramune, an NNRTI, and two other anti-retroviral medications. At the time, AIDS patients had two main options for the AIDS “cocktail”. The two options had to consist of either an NNRTI or a protease inhibitor (PI). I did not tolerate either of these medications and my medication compliance was poor. For many years I watched my CD4 counts slowly climb during periods when I was able to take my medications at a rate of about 70%. My counts would subsequently fall when I would totally stop my medications. During this time there was also a direct correlation between my viral load count and medication compliance. Due to my poor compliance, some of my drug options for assembling an effective cocktail were lost as they were no longer effective. It was not until 2007 that a new class of drugs, integrase inhibitors, were made available. They were not rushed to market. Even though I complained of side effects and clearly explained to my doctor that this is why my medication compliance was low, I was allowed to suffer. It was not until 2012 when my doctor finally relented and started me on Issentress, an integrase inhibitor.
This was a life changing event. For the first time ever I was able to maintain 100% medication compliance. Over a period of years I have watched my CD4 numbers climb to where they have come very close to normal. There are 100,000s of other AIDS patients, across the country, who can share similar stories. You could say to me that correlation does not mean causation, but I would counter, correctly, that when it is statistically significant it does. This statistical evidence is available and is conclusive. Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber and others have yet to present a consistent counter explanation that has any statistical evidence whatsoever. Instead all they have is a very vague and incoherent theory that lifestyle choices explain the advent of AIDS. When we consider the various sub-groups affected by AIDS; the gay community, those who share IV needles, hemophiliacs, and those given contaminated blood transfusions, the common thread is without question contaminated blood not lifestyle choices or drug use.
Let me be clear I am open to the idea of many conspiracy theories and even subscribe to some of the more unlikely ones, but what Farber and Duesberg are proposing goes far beyond any conspiracy yet proven in the history of man.
RFK jr. himself remains agnostic on the issue of the actual cause of AIDS. How he acts in the coming weeks and months is intimately tied to how he understands the exact origins of covid and HIV. This is an important conversation and it is vitally important that people remain objective and weigh ALL of the evidence and not just choose the bits that suits their preconceived notions.
In science, one is not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one who makes a positive assertion about cause and effect. This has never been done for the HIV/AIDS relationship as Peter Duesberg and many others have pointed out. There are lots of false positives in the PCR and antibody tests for HIV. The fact is that many people were put on a treatment protocol who had no symptoms or signs of immunological dysfunction at all. Many whose immunological systems went into decline might have become ill and died from the "treatment"---particularly those who were given AZT. Peter Duesberg's speculation about "lifestyle" causation is just that---a speculation based on the high correlation between AIDS and IV drug use and/or promiscuous homosexuality. He has no data to substantiate that theory and doesn't pretend to do so. I don't think anyone with common sense thinks there was a conspiracy to spread AIDS. Some have pointed out that many of the early cases might be traced to studies that were undertaken in a few large cities to evaluate an experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B in the late 1970s. These studies specifically recruited volunteers who engaged in homosexual relations with a multiplicity of partners as the Hepatitis B was a major health problem for that demographic group.
The lifestyle of promiscuity and heavy drug use, which was true of a small sliver of the gay community, was the prevailing thesis with regard to the appearance of strange manifestations like Karposi's sarcoma in very young men. It was largely politics that led to the "out" of finding an external cause to take attention away from the lifestyle thesis in large part due to the fact of real bigotry in the Reagan administration's base of evangelicals whose basic position was that these men deserved to die based on their sinful lifestyles. There was immense pressure for the administration to find a solution by 1984 due to continuous demonstrations in D.C. because of increased sickness and death.
A key part of the drug picture had little to do with IV drug use, but rather the use of nitrite inhalers, aka "poppers", being used in mass quantities as part of the relaxant the men used for anal sex. Again, this was the extreme hardcore young men partying all the time and they might literally have to 10-20 partners in a night or a weekend, doing poppers, maybe coke or amphetamines as well, and then coming down with STDs and getting on antibiotics and doing this week in and week out until they entirely decimated their immune systems due to living in this fast lane. I'm forgetting the other early prominent disease other than Karposi's sarcoma that was highly unusual in someone young, but I believe it related to lung cancer, or serious damage to the esophagus and lungs that could easily be hypothesized as connected with the extensive use of poppers. Many men in the gay community understood this over time as the illness and death increased and the use of poppers gradually declined as word got out within the communities in the big cities. The HIV-AIDS hypothesis became dogma so the lifestyle thesis turned into a fairly early example of a politically incorrect topic that couldn't be talked about by media but within these communities a lot of people got it and those particular illnesses declined.
You make it sound as if AIDS is no longer an issue. Poppers and hardcore lifestyles have never been shown to cause AIDS or any of the related syndromes. If I stop taking my AIDS medications my CD4 counts will plummet and my viral load counts go from undetectable to exponentially high numbers all without my doctor or lab techs having any way to know that I am presently off of my medications. There are 100,000s, if not millions, of people around the world whose blood work does the same. None of what you have said explains how this can possibly be. You are simply denying the lived experience of 100,000s of people.
You're just ignoring everything I've said and throwing out a strawman argument. If you aren't willing to do deep research and investigate then you'll be easily manipulated into what institutional authorities claim and you'll continue to believe it on faith. That is, if you're not a troll of some sort playing a part that just tosses out defamatory claims of "denialism" as you do here. Such statements are either very amateurish or just based on basic ignorance. Go watch "House of Numbers" and a host of many other documentaries and read books that don't affirm your position and biases so you can begin to face up to all the lies you've been told and begin to free your mind if you genuinely believe what you are saying. It's clear you've never genuinely taken in different viewpoints if you mean what you say here. Good luck.
A strawman fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.
I am not engaging in a strawman fallacy. I am arguing that HIV is the cause of AIDS and as evidence I am presenting myself as a case study that provides solid evidence in support of my argument. I have defamed no one. I think you are much closer to earning that accusation by claiming that I could be a troll. Everything that I have seen with my lab work, and my doctor supports the fact that HIV causes AIDS. I have simply asked for you to explain to me how it is when I stop my medication my CD4 counts plummet and my viral load explodes. Has my doctor misdiagnosed me?
Doctors are totally indoctrinated and yours likely is. "Viral load" indicates PCR which is not a diagnostic test and is utterly meaningless. CD4 may or may not have any meaning. I can ask "do you feel worse without the medication?" but the problem with that could be, and I don't know regarding such medications but I'd bet it could be true, is that you may have a dependency so it may not be wise to just go off without alternative naturopathic means of boosting immunity. It's mainly about healthy immune function-- wouldn't worry about all the hocus pocus of tests and numbers as opposed to internally measurements of health. Tons of people got off HIV meds and that's when they got better (famous example of Magic Johnson who's been alive more than 30 years-- shame he doesn't talk about it). You may be getting immune-oriented therapeutics that are far less toxic than stuff from 30-40 years ago, but that doesn't mean drugs have to be a lifelong treatment and that's our medical model-- sick people for life. There are better ways to boost immunity over time, but all I can say is do due diligence to research as I am not a practitioner or expert. I just know pharma controls medicine and their intent is profit by maintaining a constant supply of patients to profit off of.
Actually not at all true. I have seen the documentaries and I read the real Anthony Faucci. I have also pointed out that even RFK jr remains agnostic on the question of HIV causing AIDS. If it weren't for that I might not be so patient. All the things you are accusing I could say about you and more. You have not explained how my lab work shows a direct correlation between my medication compliance and my CD4 counts. It is the collapse of CD4 counts that leads to all of the syndromes related to AIDS that is a fact.
It seems to me you need to denounce anyone who does not affirm what you wish to believe is true without any actual evidence of anything but claims of truth that amount to the same ol' appeals to authority. Lab tests are proof of something? What? a lab test claims identification of a substance and that equals proof? Of what exactly? Nothing causal. CD4 counts? People can have regular CD4 counts and be sick with "AIDS", as in, one of the numerous conditions that are only AIDS with verification from an HIV 'test' that readily admits that the test itself does not confirm the presence of the virus and needs further confirmation. i.e., 'we think you have a piece or pieces of DNA that may be what we now call HIV but it's not conclusive of anything.' Or, a person can have low CD4 counts and actually be healthy. Those are facts that individuals have attested to. Proves nothing either way. Why is it that TB becomes AIDS when taking an unreliable diagnostic that is interpreted (yes, tests are interpreted) to exhibit HIV, but is only TB when there is no interpretation of HIV present? How is it that numerous people over the years take HIV tests and from one to the next in relatively short time frames they get both positive and negative results, or indeterminate results? It's illustrative about the testing and that results are unreliable.
Again, good luck, and perhaps look into the fraudulence of Robert Gallo and his HIV studies in "Fear of the Invisible." If you really wish to know you would investigate rather than demanding others conform to what I can only perceive as your indoctrinated line of thinking that act as shackles upon your consciousness. None but ourselves can free our minds.
The other disease common in AIDS is probably pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and was probably the major cause of death for those suffering from the disease. I first learned of the experimental Hepatitis B vaccine a few months ago when, in a related post, someone posted a video of Dr. Alan Cantwell and a link to his book "AIDS and the Doctors of Death". Dr. Cantwell was a dermatologist who had a special interest in Kaposi's sarcoma and was a lifelong member of the gay community in New York and Los Angeles. As a doctor and a gay man, he was well aware of what was going on in the gay communities in large urban cities and can speak with more knowledge and experience about it. His book was written in 1988 so it doesn't incorporate any further knowledge learned after that time. He has an entire chapter on the politics of AIDS.
In my opinion, the drugs and promiscuous sex had little or nothing to do with AIDS. It didn't explain the peculiar timing of the outbreak or the subsequent course of the disease over time. All those activities were going on both before and afterwards. Perhaps not with the intensity of the practices during the peak but it still is not a very satisfactory hypothesis. But the time course fits very well with the large outbreak coming soon after the introduction of the experimental vaccine in that very thin slice of the population that were selected to test the vaccine. Probably the later cases were largely due to AZT which was commonly prescribed and also available through black market sources in the gay community. As you are probably aware, AZT was developed in the 1960s as a drug to treat cancer and was taken off the market when it became evident that the toxicity to the bone marrow killed the experimental animals.
AZT was used in the first cocktails to treat AIDS. It is still prescribed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zidovudine
Yes, pneumocystis pneumonia was it. Thank you. That and Kaposi's sarcoma were the early diseases that were shocking to doctors in younger men. I don't think I heard about the Hep B vaccine though I have heard of the book but not familiar with it. There have been other hypotheses put out there as alternatives, beyond the more obvious extreme early cases, and one which comes to mind is the idea of funneling the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome cases under the AIDS umbrella as well because the growing issue of CFS was basically being ignored and/or dismissed as a psychological issue wherein the institutional establishment was essentially telling everyone there was nothing really wrong with them physically and it was all in their heads. Similar to their later tactics to a lot of vaccine injuries which was on steroids with the covid shots due to massive pressures to deny any wrong with those shots.
I believe a good case can be made for the CFS hypothesis in terms of immune deficiency and signs of auto-immune disorders that likely had varying causes regarding toxicity whatever the sources. That is after the initial wave and probably the latter half of the 80s. Certainly AZT killed a lot of people and I believe "Dallas Buyers Club" is largely about this in terms of gay men getting access to medications from Mexico that were being suppressed and denied in the U.S.
I completely disagree, however, that drugs and promiscuousness had little to do with what became labelled AIDS. First, keep in mind that AIDS is just a label, a "syndrome" that was initially attributed to something unknown until the magic virus was "discovered" by Gallo. It was initially pretty limited to those severe types of cases in young gay men and really wasn't a term referring to a large umbrella of issues until they needed to drum up new "AIDS" cases by adding a bunch of new diseases in a couple of different waves which wound up being, what?, 20-25 so-called diseases "caused" by HIV? By the time they were doing this it was all scare tactics and propaganda to boost the gravy train of the HIV=AIDS scam that was just beginning to drum up massive profits for the expensive therapeutics. The issue of extreme promiscuity isn't really about contagion through the acts of anal sex so much as it was about the contracting of STDs on a continual basis so that the men contracting an STD kept going on and off antibiotics, destroying their microbiome, continuing to party and take the drugs, with the poppers being the key factor for pneumocystis pneumonia, getting an STD again, going back on antibiotics, and so on until they had totally trashed their immune systems when they were still in their 20s. These men put the indulgences of 70s rock 'n' roll bands and their groupie parties to shame. So yes, that was primarily the early years and with awareness within the communities in the cities behaviors changed and it tapered off, but this was undoubtedly an important factor.
I think I did mention "House of Numbers" so if you haven't seen that I'd highly recommend it. Good doc. and they do touch on this issue.
While I appreciate your observation about the requirements of science, this does not change the fact that I, and countless others, will become ill with AIDS without the benefit of anti-retroviral medications. If this is not an argument against what Duesberg, Faber and others profess then I don't know what is. If you want to deny my reality that is fine, but it does not change the facts. Even though Faber assisted with RFK's book, there clearly was not enough evidence for RFK to come down on the side of not believing that HIV is the cause of AIDS. If you don't agree that HIV causes AIDS then do you think that it is not important that we have a viable alternative hypothesis? Street drugs and lifestyle choices have never been shown to cause AIDS. I am not asking Duesberg to prove a negative. I am asking him to prove an alternative theory that he himself proposed. Is there no desire to find an answer to such an important question? Or is it that once the theory does not align with one's preconceived notions then we can move on regardless of the human toll?
Last night, I watched David Brock's speech from the ARC conference in London. He claimed that Trump had cut the funding for anti-retroviral medications to African countries and that he (Brock) was already witnessing the fallout. I think it is a bit soon for all of that to already be happening, but if Trump has stopped the funding there could be serious consequences to follow that will result in a loss of confidence in any further initiatives on Trump's part.
For the record I am pulling for Trump and dislike Brock.
It is not an argument against what Duesberg et al profess because they don't profess anything except to point out that there is zero scientific evidence that a retrovirus called HIV causes AIDS. They are not obligated to present an alternative. Duesberg chooses to present an alternative but does not claim any true scientific validity for it---i.e. it is simply an alternative hypothesis. For the record, I don't agree with his hypothesis because the "lifestyle" factors he mentions are not limited to that period when AIDS was prevalent. Maybe I didn't state it clearly enough, but an alternative that makes more sense was that the whole thing started with the experimental vaccine for Hepatitis B which was given to precisely the same small slice of the population that suffered the brunt of the AIDS breakout. In other words, this experimental vaccine may have caused immune system destruction in those given the vaccine and many subsequent deaths were caused by the extensive use of AZT as treatment for HIV positive people who had no signs or symptoms of clinical AIDS. I should repeat again that this is simply an alternative theory and would require some scientific corroboration in order to be accepted. That process would start with obtaining the records of the initial studies with the experimental vaccine and then obtain as much follow-up medical data on the participants as possible. It would be a difficult and time-consuming process but worthwhile if it could shed more light on the subject.
The reason AIDS is no longer heard about, and some here even seem to think has gone away, is that it is being successfully treated with HIV medications. I personally know someone who died in 2021 due to their immune system collapsing as a direct result of poor medication compliance. They did not use street drugs and they were under the care of doctor for the last 15 years of their life.
I don't understand Ernest's reply at all.
As for your original comment, I enjoyed reading it and learning another explanation.
Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground.
So, but does this question remain? Where did HIV come from?
What part of "there is no scientifically credible evidence that HIV causes or , in any way, is related to AIDS" didn't you understand? Peter Duesberg, the world's leading expert on retroviruses, explained in a number of articles and books why retroviruses could not cause disease.
You may not agree but leading "discredited" expert on retroviruses would be a more accurate description. The medical community as a whole no longer takes him seriously.
What part of my story did you not understand. When I stop my medications my CD4 counts plummet to dangerously low levels and my viral load explodes from non-detectable. And don't tell me about PCR testing. PCR testing may not be "diagnostic" but it is legitimate when used properly. It was not used properly during Covid.
Kary Mullis discussing his coming to terms with the HIV- AIDS hypothesis as having no scientific backing, a position he affirmed for the rest of his life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJ_Sw0iwMI&ab_channel=DissociatedPress
That link is part extra material from the film "House of Numbers" which is a documentary I would highly recommend which is actually available on youtube. There have been several previous to that film that also expose the lack of a scientific basis for the thesis, though I do think 'House of Numbers' is likely the best one.
Excuse me for being blunt, but it seems to be you haven't really researched this topic in much depth. Robert Gallo is a scoundrel and a fraud and any historical research will bear that out. The man who was allowed to announce a 'viral cause' of AIDS (a syndrome, not a disease) in a famous press conference not only had failed to publish a single paper on the subject at the time, but it was later learned that his "discovery" was a culture sample that he stole from the rightful discoverer, Luc Montaigner, and it was not called "HIV" at the time. That moniker came later. Montaigner, who would later get credit and receive the Nobel prize, never made any claims of his discovery being a cause of AIDS though he was clearly excited about the possibility of a link. He would eventually admit publicly that he did not think that HIV was a direct cause of AIDS, and like many careful scientists who didn't wish to have their entire careers destroyed by the corrupted orthodoxy, he stated that their must be unknown "co-factors" that had yet to be discovered that had to be essential. Duesberg just had the guts early on to say retroviruses are dormant and they do not cause illness and just came out and stated the obvious that HIV basically doesn't do much of anything. Where did it come from? It, like many other micro-organisms in our system, was "discovered" because of improved technologies and because of the motivations of scientists to find things that happen to have always been present in our biology and then attribute new labels to them in hopes of becoming famous with a great discovery. That's merely my prevailing thesis.
"Fear of the Invisible" by Janine Roberts is an excellent and fairly inexpensive work of investigative journalism that is a must read on the topic as well. She basically exposes the fact all of Gallo's (the faux discoverer of a viral cause) work was fraudulent. The foundations of the "science" which was announced to the world without a single paper being published was later proven to be fraudulent and Gallo was kicked out of his government position. Unfortunately, the numerous investigations into him and his work were eventually closed down as the great HIV-AIDS dogmatic behemoth had already been unleashed on the world as a major industry that could not be stopped.
So Gallo's reputation amidst actual scientists was destroyed, but there was no real media coverage of any of this and he was unceremoniously expelled after the damage was done-- pretty much par for the course. By the way, he also made a small fortune shortly after his announcement of "discovery" by immediately patenting a fraudulent HIV test (or whatever label at the time) and I believe he may have even done this prior to his AIDS papers being published.
I haven't researched this topic. All these words make my brain glaze over. What is the bottom line here? The take-away info please.
Well, if you haven't research the topic then why are you saying, "Anyone who thinks AIDS is not associated with HIV is on shaky ground," when yo don't know what you're talking about?
I gave you plenty to follow up on and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a "take away." Watch "House of Numbers" on youtube. Good, fairly short documentary. You can learn plenty just starting there.
Yes exactly! We can claim that a theory has not been proven to our satisfaction but that hardly means the original question has somehow gone away. In the meantime for those who remain skeptical, I have provided a statistical means to prove that HIV does in fact cause AIDS. That offer has been ignored because there would seem to be an agenda to deny any argument that does not lead to an already given conclusion.
There is another writer on Substack, I have forgotten her name and no longer follow her, she recommended a fascinating book called Dr. Mary's Monkey that provides some interesting clues. It is possible that a retrovirus was made to be toxic with intent to be used against Fidel Castro in the early 60s. I had considered writing an article on the book but it has nothing to do with astrology and at any rate my stamina is in very short supply lately.
Are the cocktails of drugs truly anti-retroviral? Or do they perform immunotherapy as well? I ask because if HIV is the sole retrovirus to cause harm, could it be that a retrovirus is present because of AIDS, not because it causes AIDS?
The Cocktail of drugs causes the HIV retrovirus to become dormant in the body. This is demonstrated with viral load testing. If a patient has built up immunity to the drugs due to poor compliance the viral load will remain high. Tests can then be done to determine which cocktail of drugs will work. When the patient is switched to the new regimen the viral load will drop to non-detectable and the patient regains their health. All of this has been demonstrated in clinics across the world for the past 30 years and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that HIV in fact causes AIDS.
In short, I will simply challenge your claim that there is "conclusive evidence" with regard to HIV causing AIDS thesis. Scientists repeating the assumption of "HIV is the probably cause of AIDS" and perhaps transforming 'probable' into a presumption of 'definite' is the installation of dogma which has no basis in any experiments anywhere on the planet. Have you watched "House of Numbers" or many other documentaries on the matter which precede that film which came out, I think, in 2009? Have you read Duesberg's book, "Inventing the AIDS Virus"? Expensive to buy now but a public library might have a copy. Have you seen Kary Mullis (inventor of PCR who stated clearly it is not a diagnostic tool) talk about his process of realizing there was no proof behind the HIV causes AIDS thesis? Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQJ_Sw0iwMI&ab_channel=DissociatedPress
This link is part of additional material to "House of Numbers" that was not in the film.
If you are not familiar with any of this, and really the entire historical, political, and social milieu that has been unearthed about the topic at this point than I would have to suggest that you've been programmed into this dogma and are perhaps too well-entrenched to accept what I am saying or to be swayed to really do a deep dive that challenges your own assumptions and biases that have been fed to you for decades. There is a wealth of material on the matter that exposes the HIV-AIDS hypothesis as a very flimsy thesis.
One other very important recommendation if you do decide to research more deeply would be to pick up a copy of Janine Roberts', "Fear of the Invisible", which is an excellent work of investigative journalism that carries the reader along her process of discovery that ultimate leads to the understanding that all of Robert Gallo's papers on the HIV-AIDS thesis (wasn't called HIV at the time) were fraudulent. In fact, Gallo's announcement on the alleged cause of AIDS was made without any of his papers even being published to that point.
Stunning! I thought I had a solid grasp of the criminality... but having it tied directly to it's beginning - the AIDS/AZT conspiracy - really hit home! The WORLD needs a Nuremberg 2.0 sans another Operation Paperclip! They all need to swing from a hemp rope.
Great stuff.....including the violin of Larry Unger.
What a great interview. Celia Farber needs to unpack and reveal the meaning of her
EMF Wuhan comment. JKH and CF need to spend a weekend together and watch
"The Strecker Memorandum"( https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHUBHWEYiFxMXTDwltKYtPE48C1GqzT98). Robert B. Strecker MD,Ph.D died April 2019 in a "car crash". His brother ,Theodore Strecker JD, was suicided in the mid 1980's. Here is the formula. HIV= BLV+VV....Human Immunodeficiency Virus is made from Bovine Leukemia Virus (cows) hybridized with Visna Virus ( from Sheep ) and grown in human tissue cell culture to the point it would only infect human tissue. HIV is destructive in cell culture (kills all the cells) BLV and others are proliferative(cancer like) in cell culture. The new HIV was deployed via the Hepatitis B vaccine project for gay males who were non monogamous only. The number of sex partners was quite large for the participants, making it difficult to trace its origin. Not that anybody tried. The "Memorandum" is a distillation RBS research at the time(1987). At the end of the video, there is a Q&A session. I was a participant asking questions, along with the producer and his executive officer, and the moderator of the video. Dr. Strecker sent certified letters to all members of the House and Senate and White House in 1983 declaring that the USA had been attacked by a bioweapon. Crickets were the response( similar to CF's zombie comment in the above podcast.) He attempted to direct sell the Memorandum on late night TV...all TV broadcast owners refused to allow him to advertise his video. HIV is as natural as the hydrogen bomb. The polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40(Dr. Mary's Monkey) 100 million doses were administered to USA children. C19 Vaccine contains the cancer promoting sequence of SV40 and the envelope gene of HIV, along with 3 other HIV genes. We have been fucked at the drive through while attempting to order dinner. jjadams md contact jams999@protonmail.com
Dr. Mary's Monkey is a fascinating read. I wonder if there might be more about that story in the JFK documents or elsewhere that has never been released. I think there are more than a few theories regarding the origins of HIV. One that I've heard is that since HIV originated with monkeys, that it may have crossed over into the polio vaccine since the vaccine was grown in monkey kidney cells. Also, could it be possible that HIV was a result of the high voltage experiments that were being conducted in New Orleans as revealed in Dr. Mary's Monkey?