Retrovirus is the New Black
by Liam Scheff.
Question: What is HIV, and who is more correct, Dr. Peter Duesberg, or the Perth Group (or the mainstream)?
The mainstream, with its ‘one size fits all’ and ’till death do you part’ approach with its lousy tests and lousier drugs, is not correct. They are, however, totally and transparently corrupt.
Dr. Duesberg gets it right on AZT (it’s too toxic for use), and on the idea that HIV is not a pathogenic particle per se, but gets it wrong in identifying “HIV” as “a” particle, or “a” retrovirus. Why is he wrong? Because, as anyone can witness by reviewing the HIV genome databank, “HIV” is actually a name now given to disparate, separable biological/cellular microscopic phenomena, the various proteins and variable areas of strands of embedded DNA culled from experiments, that are, for show purposes stitched together – according to Duesberg’s retroviral model!
The Perth Group gets it right on HIV in the sense that “HIV” as a term used in Gallo and Montagnier’s experiments, does not represent a uniform particle, but rather a collection of fragments, proteins, variable in size and nature, with wide and non-specific affinities for antibodies produced in a dozen dozen diseases and conditions; Perth gets it wrong in saying that “There is no proof for the existence of HIV,”
Continue reading Retrovirus is the New Black
RTB: HIV tests are poly-reactive and non-standardized; they give no single reaction, and react with no single disease. The list below, from the National Institutes of Health Reference and Reagent Program, is “The Source of Critical HIV Research Materials.” These are what scientists and researchers refer to when they refer to HIV. There is no single particle, no reference particle for HIV tests, and no complete particle.
The proteins and genetic strands are assembled from sub-fragments and partial genetic strands, copied using PCR tests and stitched together with molecular cloning and engineering technologies. Is HIV itself a multiplicity of particles, proteins and events, mistakenly stitched together under one name? Is this why so many illnesses give “positive” reactions on “HIV tests?”
How many different entities are we now collecting under the name “HIV?” Is HIV a catch-all for many activities in the body, some indicating disease, some not? This would explain the diversity and difficulty with HIV testing.
Continue reading Which of These is HIV?
By Cal Crilly, 27 May 2006
edited by Fintan Dunne, Editor MyLongLife.com
“HIV is so 80’s.
That’s why it’s called a retro virus.”
Download as PDF
“First of all I’m not qualified. I’ve been an electronics factory worker for the last decade. I’ve done half a year part-time of university biology but discovered that under our government’s cutbacks, night classes don’t exist anymore –so all of this was researched during tea breaks.”
||I’m here because I read John Lauritsen’s AIDS War and for me HIV/AIDS was over once I discovered the truth about the AIDS drugs. That book was written in 1994, so why am I even writing this now? I don’t know.
I also became incredibly ill from Phenol (Benzene) exposure at work and that’s why I know the fine details. This is because Benzene is still the most obvious culprit involved in the T-cell depletion that causes AIDS.
- “By carefully measuring individual laborers’ exposure to benzene and other chemicals, the researchers showed that the 109 workers exposed below the 1 ppm level still had white blood cell counts almost 15 percent lower than similar workers who were not exposed. The reduction was larger for individuals subjected to more than 10 ppm of benzene.”
My first shot, if I ever say Benzene causes more T-cell depletion than HIV I get called a holocaust denier. Oh well. Continue reading Why Retroviruses Appear in AIDS, Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases