The “No Virus” Theory Is Based on HIV

Op-Ed by Julie Beal

When Stefan Lanka came up with the no-virus theory, it seems he based it all on HIV and AIDS. It’s like he tried to generalize from one virus to all viruses, using other people’s theories. Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman have popularized Lanka’s ideas and have recently suggested that criticisms about the isolation of HIV can be applied to all viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. This is highly misleading, because if anyone decides to look up some of these criticisms, they’ll sound like the stuff the no-virus theorists say, as if it’s some kind of validation, or proof that viruses don’t exist at all. But the scientists who criticised the discovery of HIV were making very specific points about one virus only – they didn’t suggest it applied to other viruses, and none of them said viruses aren’t real. Only Stefan Lanka said that. The whole thing started in 1998 when he revealed his idea:

“I realized that the whole group of viruses to which HIV is said to belong, the retroviruses — as well as other viruses which are claimed to be very dangerous — in fact do not exist at all.”

Generalizing from the one to the many is entirely illogical, and it’s highly misleading to make unverified claims, especially now.[i] As the following table shows, twisting the words and meanings of the original theorists is a crass misrepresentation of their work.

As described in a previous article, Lanka sided with the Perth Group in claiming HIV had never been isolated based on their assessment that it had not been purified correctly. They say proteins are produced when special types of cells are stimulated, but there’s no proof these proteins belong to a retrovirus. Formed in the 1980s, the core members of the Perth Group include “the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar (Val) Turner, and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou.” For many years they’ve maintained there’s no proof that HIV is “a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus,” and they therefore doubt the existence of HIV-specific antibodies, and reject the use of antibody tests. They do, however, think AIDS is real, and they have a theory for what causes it (cellular redox). Like most AIDS dissidents, they also highlight the toxic effects of AZT.

The Perth Group had a big influence on members of Rethinking AIDS and the publishers of Continuum, many of whom defended the “no HIV” theory. In the late 1990s, they got caught up in a somewhat bitter row that ensued when Peter Duesberg, perhaps the most famous AIDS dissident, came out and said, yes, the virus does exist, HIV is real. Duesberg is a molecular biologist who became famous after doing work on cancer and genetics during the 1970s. “At the age of 36, Duesberg was awarded tenure at the University of California, Berkeley, and at 49, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.” He began questioning HIV as the cause of AIDS in 1987, and eventually proposed that it’s a harmless passenger virus which is “inactive or latent in carriers with and without AIDS.” He said the Perth Group were “claiming way above what the standards are for the identification of a virus, or any microbe, as the cause of a disease.”

Duesberg published his ideas in a book called ‘Inventing the AIDS Virus in 1996, noting, “The Koch-Pasteur model set off a medical gold rush of microbe and virus hunters that came to a happy end when all major infectious diseases were apparently eliminated from the Western world, the last being polio in the 1950s.” Essentially, although he acknowledged the effects of sanitation, he thought vaccines were responsible for getting rid of these infectious diseases, but he was wise to the influence of Big Pharma, and ahead of most people when he pointed out the fundamental problem with germ theory:

“… vast numbers of harmless microbes exist in the world … even potentially pathogenic bacteria only cause life-threatening disease in those whose immune systems are temporarily or chronically impaired. … We coexist with a sea of microbes and benefit from many, including those that naturally reside in the human body.”

Take Control of Your Family’s Health — Immune System Support Kit (Ad)

Karey Mullis, the man who invented PCR, wrote a foreword to Duesberg’s book and also disputed HIV as being the cause of AIDS. “If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS,” he said, “there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.” Mullis emphasised that PCR could not be used to diagnose disease, because it cannot identify whole (infectious) viruses. He did not, however, say PCR was unable to detect viral sequences.

Etienne de Harven was another influential scientist in the AIDS dissident movement. He was a pathologist and electron microscopist who discovered a leukaemia-causing retrovirus in mice in the 1960s. He was able to image the viral particles coming out of cells, which led him to coin the term “budding.” In 2010 he proposed that HIV is a human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) that releases fragments of RNA when cells are under stress. Virologists would refute this claim, however, because the sequences in HIV are only slightly similar to the sequences of HERVs. Also, HERVs are unable to replicate, whereas HIV can. Like Duesberg, de Harven emphasised the role played by Big Pharma in Nixon’s War on Cancer; and, also like Duesberg, he described virologists as “fanatical virus hunters” He referred to the study of HIV/AIDS as an “impure science.”

We stand on their shoulders

We owe a lot to these theorists and other AIDS dissidents because, without them, we might not have paid much attention to the series of spurious outbreaks that have taken place over the last 20 years. Thanks to them, and Jon Rappoport especially, we were forewarned. They warned us that viruses could be used for political theatre and Big Pharma profits, using the media to whip up fear about contagion to sell more vaccines. They also warned us about the effects of toxic pharmaceuticals, such as AZT, and what happens to people who are labelled HIV positive. They helped us understand that PCR tests cannot prove infection, and highlighted the many different causes of disease. Thanks to them, we were able to analyse the string of outbreaks that have occurred since AIDS. We witnessed what happened with swine flu and our hackles stood up when the ronascam started in China. Thanks to them, we could see where it might lead. We stand on their shoulders and should respect them by not misrepresenting their work like the no-virus theorists do.

The influence of the “no HIV” theory

HIV=AIDS critics spent a lot of time trying to prove AIDS wasn’t a real disease, or wasn’t caused by a virus. After a while, it seems, some of them started to think they could prove HIV isn’t real by proving AIDS isn’t real. Eventually, some of them seemed to think they could also prove viruses such as H5N1 aren’t real based on there being a general lack of disease. The reasoning here is that if there’s no disease, it means there’s no virus, but it could also mean the virus is real but isn’t as deadly as it’s said to be. The no-virus theorists spend most of their time arguing viruses can’t exist if they don’t cause disease. They equate viruses with disease, as if they’re the same thing, just like germ theorists do.

The doctors who promote the no-virus theory say they’re revealing a huge conspiracy, but all they tend to do is regurgitate Lanka’s musings. The bigger conspiracy is the way these doctors have misdirected activists, wasting time and energy. They’ve discredited the anti-covidian movement by saying things that aren’t true,[ii] and they’ve undermined terrain theory by discounting the role of microbes. They have mocked anti-vax researchers, disrespected the victims of vaccines, misused theories about HIV, and spread confusion about viruses, genetics and PCR.

The lure of the no-virus theory is that it seems to explain not only the ronascam, but also the other over-hyped outbreaks, such as SARS, MERS and swine flu. It provides a quick and easy way to criticize both vaccines and virology, and empowers people to “prove it for themselves.” All they have to do is find studies which describe isolation, scroll down to the “Methods” section, and verify that the viruses came from a cell culture, rather than direct from a patient sample. This is classed as instant proof of the no-virus theory, especially if there’s no mention of purification. After that, there’s no point reading the other sections, because they’re just blathering on about something that doesn’t even exist. In fact, all articles about viruses can be safely ignored and no further thought is required. Getting people to switch their brains off is not empowerment, of course. Nor is it empowering to be sent on a pointless mission that wastes time, proves nothing, and leads nowhere.

The no-virus theory is a lazy, badly-researched idea that’s full of misunderstandings, and it stymies the anti-covidian movement by closing down debate, preventing research, and giving us a bad name. It appears to provide an explanation for vaccine harm but ends up obscuring the dreadful things that have happened since vaccination first began and flippantly dismisses decades of research with a flick of the hand. Despite being a theory about “natural” viruses, whose origin is in dispute, it’s made people lose interest in lab-made versions, the origin of which can easily be confirmed. These mutant viruses are fashioned “in silico,” then brought into being via chemical synthesis.

But mutant viruses are nothing new. Ever since viruses were first discovered in the early 1900s, scientists have been mutating them by passaging them through animals and humans. This creates altered versions with brand new properties and they are, of course, entirely unnatural. Meddling with viruses in this way might mess with our microbes when used in vaccines, damaging our immunity. Mutant viruses used in experiments could escape from the lab any time. Whether by accident or by design, human interference with viruses may therefore explain at least some of the over-hyped outbreaks, from as far back as Rockefeller in the early 1900s and all the way through to the 21^st Century Reset.

Notes:

[i]  At a time like this, we need to question and review all available evidence, because we do the job the mainstream media fails to do. If the no-virus theory had any evidence to offer, we could review that evidence, and compare it to other forms of evidence in order to evaluate them. However, the only evidence the no-virus theorists ever present to support their claims are, 1) Lanka’s court case, which is claimed to prove measles does not exist, as if the judges said so themselves, and, 2) Lanka’s ‘control’ experiments, in which he attempts to prove virologists poison cells by trying to poison cells himself. The rest of the no-virus theory is just a series of assertions about what it ‘should’ be possible to achieve (e.g. with purification), with a few one line quotes thrown in here and there.

[ii]  Virologists do not “starve and poison cells” by decreasing the nutrients and increasing the antibiotics and fungicides. They follow standard protocols to keep the cells alive. Nor is it true that, “virologists mentally assemble a fictitious long genome strand” of a virus using, “very short pieces of nucleic acids, whose sequence consists of four molecules”.

For a start, genomes are far too complex for anyone to be able to “mentally assemble” them. Secondly, the sequences have to be much longer than “four molecules” to be used for genetic sequencing. Each DNA molecule consists of two nucleotides (also known as a base pair, this is always either A + T or G + C). The longest single sequence found by the alleged discoverers of the rona was 30,474 nucleotides long, and was enough to cover, “almost the whole virus genome”. Other sequences covering the whole genome of bacteria were also identified, such as a type of Leptotrichia (the sequence was 3,696 nucleotides long, as shown in the supplementary materials provided by the authors.) RT-PCR tests for the rona use primers which range from 145 to 588 base pairs.

Read much more about the science behind the coronavirus injections at Julie Beal’s archive.

Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Flote, Minds, MeWe, Twitter, Gab, What Really Happened and GETTR.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

The “No Virus” Theory Is Based on HIV