For over four decades, the prevailing narrative surrounding AIDS has centered on the HIV virus as its primary cause, as posited by governments and health organizations worldwide. Despite this consensus, alternative theories have been largely suppressed or marginalized. In his book *The Real Anthony Fauci*, Robert Kennedy Jr. highlights the extensive body of evidence supporting these dissenting views, including over 900 references to academic literature. While some praise this work, critics argue that the endorsements come from lesser-known figures in the scientific community. One notable exception is the late Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize-winning researcher credited with discovering HIV, who acknowledged the presence of “many untruths” in the mainstream narrative about AIDS and supported Kennedy’s claims, suggesting that the understanding of AIDS and its causes is more complex than originally thought.
Montagnier’s own perspectives on the relationship between HIV and AIDS have evolved over time. In a 1992 interview, he indicated that HIV infection did not necessarily lead to AIDS and that other factors might contribute to the disease’s development. This sentiment echoes the views of other dissident scientists, such as Professor Peter Duesberg, who argued that recreational drug use was a significant factor in the early AIDS cases, rather than HIV itself. Duesberg’s critiques prompted significant backlash from the scientific community, which maintained a strong consensus on the HIV/AIDS connection. The UK’s Chief Medical Officer and other health authorities condemned dissenting views as potentially dangerous misinformation, reinforcing the prevailing narrative that linked HIV infection directly to AIDS.
One of the most significant challenges to the HIV/AIDS paradigm emerged from a 1993 paper published in *Bio/Technology*, which argued that the HIV tests used for diagnosis were never scientifically validated. This paper suggested that the antibodies detected in patients could be due to immune system abnormalities rather than the presence of HIV. The authors contended that the tests were based on circular reasoning, as they were designed to react with antibodies in AIDS patients without proving that these antibodies were specific to HIV. This argument revealed a critical flaw in the scientific basis for HIV testing and the resultant diagnosis of AIDS, casting doubt on the validity of the entire HIV/AIDS narrative.
Despite the overwhelming financial and political investments in the HIV/AIDS model, various researchers, including the Perth group led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, have continued to challenge the established view. Their work identified five key mistakes in the foundational science, including the misinterpretation of reverse transcriptase activity and the failure to isolate and purify HIV particles. Additionally, they argued that the correlation between HIV and AIDS is artificial, stemming from the nature of the tests rather than a clear causal relationship. Their findings suggest that lifestyle factors, such as drug use and certain sexual practices, may be more relevant to the observed health crises than the presence of a virus. Despite decades of criticism and censorship, the critiques and alternative explanations offered by these researchers call for a reevaluation of the HIV/AIDS framework and its implications for public health and treatment strategies, potentially benefiting millions in the process.
The above is an AI summary offered by the website which has posted the full article. The summary is a convenience for interested readers. Coincidentally, to my knowledge, Fauci is widely believed to have had as large a role in the ‘HIV myth’ as he has had in the covid-19 scamdemic. It is possible Fauci will be revealed to be the most successful psychopathic medical murderer in world history. ABN
In 2022, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of the NordICC trial — the first randomised controlled study of colonoscopy screening ever conducted. Over 84,000 people were followed for ten years. The trial found an 18% reduction in cancer incidence and no significant reduction in cancer deaths. To prevent a single case of colorectal cancer, 455 people had to be invited for screening. To prevent a single death, the numbers were statistically indistinguishable from zero.¹
This is the pattern.
Across the major screening programmes — mammography, PSA, Pap, colonoscopy, lung CT — when the question is whether the screened population actually outlives the unscreened population, the benefit largely disappears.² The statistic the programmes advertise is disease-specific mortality: deaths from the disease the test is looking for. The statistic they bury is all-cause mortality: whether the screened group, taken as a whole, lives longer. The two numbers are not the same. You can reduce deaths from one disease while total deaths remain flat — because treatment has killed as many people as the disease prevented, or because the disease you found was never going to kill anyone.²
The screened do not live longer than the unscreened. They are more likely to spend their remaining years monitored, biopsied, cut, and medicated for conditions that would not have harmed them. This essay catalogues twelve tests that produce that conversion, organised by the four mechanisms through which it is achieved.
The Nuremberg Code of ethics is laudable, but the trials themselves today appear dubious at best and a travesty of justice at worst. I mention this because of the video’s title, and also because it should be mentioned frequently enough to remind us that history, too, is highly susceptible to fraudulent revisions which support deeply impactful falsehoods in the present. The entire downfall of the West today is largely explainable by historical lies which have inculcated the vast majority of Westerners with self-destructive ideas of who they are and what they can become. Covid itself was a lie as are its dominant prescribed treatments, or prescribed lack thereof. ABN
The ‘reasoning’ behind Vitamin K injections is so bad it is not even pseudoscience. It is anti-science, bogus payola scientism. A scam worked on babies and their parents. ABN
Government science once again shown to be seriously fraudulent. There is no reason to trust government science in climate, medical, sociological, psychological or political fields. It always bends toward wherever the money is coming from, including the corrupt use of welfare and bogus charities. ABN
One of the most disgusting aspects of the apparent covid and covid-vax bioweapons paired-assault on USA and the world. War by deception is an act of war. ABN
Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.
Serotonin was first named “enteramine” in 1935 meaning “an amino acid derivative present in the gut.”
It was named “serotonin” in 1948, meaning “substance in the blood (sero- for serum) that increases vasoconstriction (-tonin for vascular tone).
In 1952, it was established that entermaine and serotonin were the same compound.
Had serotonin research not been completely perverted by Pharma, it would have become rapidly apparent that these are deeply connected: serotonin’s one role in the entire body is to coordinate mitochondrial function in response to variation in the supply and demand of oxygen. It regulates motility in the gut to prevent local hypoxia. It coordinates blood flow to maximize efficiency of oxygen delivery.
But when SSRIs were released in 1986, Pharma solidified the destruction of these lines of inquiry by selecting a thread started by the influence of LSD in the 1950s that claimed serotonin was a lever to be pulled to manipulate the state of the brain.
The “R” in SSRIs is an insidious lie.
It implies that SSRIs specifically inhibit “reuptake” of serotonin, a phenomenon only relevant to the first neuron of a synapse.
This created the total mythology that the one thing they do is keep serotonin in the synapse longer to have greater activity on the receiving neuron.
They knew this was false.
They knew these are generic inhibitors of the serotonin transporter, which is not primarily found in the brain and is not primarily found in neurons.
Its has tremendous expression in the gut, lungs, and reproductive organs.
It’s found inside cells, most likely mediating the established direct transport of serotonin into mitochondria.
On a cellular basis the highest expression is in enterocytes, not in enteric neurons, and in the placenta.
The word “SSRI” is pure propaganda meant to cut out almost all of the relevant serotonin research in the way that Stalin cut out Trotsky from all the pictures of the two of them with Lenin to paint himself as Lenin’s true successor.
They are “serotonin transporter inhibitors.”
Until the concept of reuptake inhibition is recognized fundamentally as propaganda instead of science, no one is going to understand why these drugs cause birth defects and alterations to fetal brain development or why they stop you from being able to feel your genitals and nipples or why tapering from long-term use causes catastrophic new-onset syndromes that have little to do with why anyone took them in the first place.
American Buddhist Net 