Dawn Lester, What Really Makes You Ill?
Recent media articles have declared that a study has discovered a ‘new strain of HIV’. This study, which was conducted at the University of Oxford, is reported on their website in a News article with the headline, New highly virulent and damaging HIV variant discovered in the Netherlands, which states,
“As the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated, new mutations in viral genetic sequences can have significant impacts on the virus’s transmissibility and the damage it causes.”
This is, however, pure propaganda. It is yet another completely false narrative, but its purpose would seem to be to ensure that people remain in fear of ‘deadly viruses’.
There are many problems with claims about a so-called ‘virus’ called ‘HIV’ that is said to be the cause of AIDS. The main point is that there is no evidence – and there never has been – that any particle labelled ‘HIV’ is pathogenic.
The idea that ‘HIV’ is not a deadly virus will no doubt be regarded as outrageous by many people, considering the claims made about it by various health organisations. This can be seen by the WHO HIV/AIDS fact sheet, which states that,
“HIV continues to be a major global public health issue, having claimed 36.3 million [27.2–47.8 million] lives so far.”
Despite the seemingly authoritative nature of this statement, nothing could be further from the truth, as discussed in some detail in our book, What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong.
However, there are some specific aspects of the current media stories about this alleged ‘new strain’ that need to be discussed so that people can protect themselves from being drawn into yet more unfounded fears.
The first point to discuss involves the types of tests being used to determine a person’s ‘HIV status’, which are described on the CDC web page entitled Types of HIV Tests that states,
“There are three types of tests available: nucleic acid tests (NAT), antigen/antibody tests, and antibody tests. HIV tests are typically performed on blood or oral fluid. They may also be performed on urine.”
The NAT is claimed to be able to detect how much ‘virus’ is in the blood, this is also known as ‘viral load’.
A 2012 article entitled Universal Amplification, Next-Generation Sequencing, and Assembly of HIV-1 Genomes explains the methods used for the measurement of ‘viral load’, all of which involve RT-PCR (real time polymerase chain reaction). The purpose of the PCR technology is to amplify genetic material, but, according to its inventor Kary Mullis PhD, it does not and cannot determine if a person has been infected by a virus. One of the main problems with the PCR process, which has been highlighted by many people over the course of the past 2 years, is that the results will depend on the number of cycles used and that the greater the number of cycles the higher the chances of a ‘positive’ result.
But the core problem with using this technology is that it relies on the existence of a unique virus with which the genetic material extracted from a person can be compared. But the ‘virus’ known as HIV has never been isolated, purified and its genetic material characterised, so the claim that there is something that can be described as an ‘HIV genome’ is unfounded.
The use of these technologies and the problems with the interpretations used in the diagnosis of ‘HIV infection’, or any viral ‘infection’ for that matter, are explained by Jerneja Tomsic PhD in my recent conversation with her (link in the references at the foot of this article).
The most common type of test, which is available as a home-testing kit, is the rapid antigen/antibody test that is said to ‘look for both HIV antibodies and antigens’.
The reason for this is explained on the CDC page, which states,
“If you have HIV, an antigen called p24 is produced even before antibodies develop.”
There are serious problems with this claim. In her 1996 article entitled Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway? Christine Johnson lists a large number of ‘Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results’. These factors include vaccinations for flu, hepatitis B and tetanus. This strongly indicates that these antibodies cannot be specific to ‘HIV’.
Also, in his article entitled HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests, Professor Henry Bauer PhD discusses the relevance of a number of different proteins that have been ‘found’ and claimed to be associated with HIV. But these proteins have been found in association with many other conditions. More importantly, he states that,
“Far from being specific to HIV or AIDS patients…p24 and p41 are not even specific to illness.”
Furthermore, as explained in my article entitled Antibodies & Immunity: Dispelling Two More Myths, the proteins that are labelled antibodies and antigens do not function in the way they are claimed. In fact, the presence of antibodies is interpreted in two completely different ways; one claims that the presence of antibodies means that a person is ‘immune’ and the other way, which refers to ‘HIV’, claims that the presence of antibodies means that a person is ‘infected’. These interpretations are mutually exclusive.
However, that does not mean that either of those interpretations is correct; because they are both wrong, which renders these ‘HIV tests’ meaningless.
The next aspect to highlight is the idea that there is a new ‘strain’ or ‘variant’ of HIV and that it is the result of a mutation in the genome of the ‘virus’.
The study that claims to have discovered this variant was published on 3 February 2022 in the highly prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Science. The research article, entitled A highly virulent variant of HIV-1 circulating in the Netherlands, refers to the new variant as VB and states that,
“This virus lineage, which has apparently arisen de novo since around the millennium, shows extensive change across the genome affecting almost 300 amino acids, which makes it hard to discern the mechanism for elevated virulence.”
The people who were identified as having been ‘infected’ by the new strain were part of an ongoing study called BEEHIVE, [Bridging the Epidemiology and Evolution of HIV in Europe (and Uganda)], the website of which includes the statement that,
“Before this study, the genetics of the HIV virus were known to be relevant for virulence…”
It is clear that there are many similarities between the narrative regarding ‘HIV’ and the narrative regarding ‘SARS-CoV2’ including references to the existence of ‘variants’. This similarity is referred to in the Science article that states,
“The risk posed by viruses evolving to greater virulence—i.e., causing greater damage to their hosts—has been extensively studied in theoretical work despite few population-level examples. The most notable recent example is the B.1.617.2 lineage (Delta variant) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), for which an increased probability of death has been reported, as well as increased transmissibility.”
However, the BEEHIVE web page states that,
“HIV mutates so quickly that every individual has a virus which is different from everyone else’s, and indeed their virus changes over time. The large majority of these mutations make no difference.”
The ‘virulence’ of HIV is determined by measuring ‘viral load’ and CD4 counts.
The detection of variants is described in a 2017 paper entitled Viral genetic variation accounts for a third of variability in HIV-1 set-point viral load in Europe, which describes the methods used for sequencing the genetic material and states that,
“HIV genomes were amplified using a set of universal primers, and sequencing was performed using Illumina MiSeq or HiSeq 2500 technology. This generated paired-end reads, which varied in length between 100 and 300 base pairs. HIV genome sequences were assembled for each sample using the custom pipeline ‘shiver’ described in detail elsewhere.”
This process clearly depends on the prior existence of an ‘HIV genome’ and on the idea that this was the only genetic material that was amplified. A more in-depth scrutiny of the paper shows that, as with SARS-CoV2, the ‘assembly’ of what is claimed to be ‘variants’ took place within computer models. In other words, these sequences have never been shown to exist in nature.
There is a fundamental problem with the idea that they are comparing new genome sequences found in people with the original genome of ‘HIV’. The problems are highlighted by the Perth Group on the web page entitled What the Perth Group has argued, that refers to a number of issues the HIV/AIDS experts have not proven. One of the unproven issues is,
“The existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.”
Another unproven issue is,
“The “HIV genome”, (RNA or DNA) originates in a unique, exogenously acquired infectious retroviral particle.”
In other words, the complete lack of evidence for the existence of ‘HIV’ as a ‘pathogenic particle’ means that there is no such thing as an ‘HIV genome’. This in turn means that there can be no ‘variant’, virulent or otherwise.
The most insidious aspect of the drive to urge everyone to ‘get tested’ and ‘know their status’ is that it will increase the number of people who are prescribed ‘antiretroviral treatment’. The reason for this is because the study claims to have shown that treatment had a positive effect on people who had been diagnosed with the VB variant, as discussed in a 4 February Science Daily article entitled New highly virulent and damaging HIV variant discovered in the Netherlands, that states,
“Reassuringly, after starting treatment, individuals with the VB variant had similar immune system recovery and survival to individuals with other HIV variants. However, the researchers stress that because the VB variant causes a more rapid decline in immune system strength, this makes it critical that individuals are diagnosed early and start treatment as soon as possible.”
This recommendation is supported by the WHO, as the BEEHIVE web page states,
“Our finding emphasises the importance of World Health Organisation guidance that individuals at risk of acquiring HIV have access to regular testing to allow early diagnosis, followed by immediate treatment.”
This guidance is clearly intended for ‘people at risk’.
Yet the consequence of the inevitable increase in the numbers of people undergoing tests is the equally inevitable rise in the number of ‘positive’ test results, which means that more people will be encouraged, if not required, to begin treatment, whether or not they fall into the ‘at risk’ category. But the ‘treatments’ used for those diagnosed as being ‘HIV positive’ are highly toxic. One of the drugs used is called dolutegravir, which has some extremely serious ‘side effects’, as can be seen on the Clinical Info HIV gov website about the drug, which states,
“Dolutegravir can cause serious, life-threatening side effects. These include allergic reactions and liver problems.”
The fact that this drug affects the liver is a clear indication that it is highly toxic, because the liver is the body’s main detoxification organ.
Furthermore, as well as being highly toxic, these ‘treatments’ aren’t even claimed to be able to ‘cure’ HIV, as the WHO fact sheet admits,
“HIV disease can be managed by treatment regimens composed of a combination of three or more antiretroviral (ARV) drugs. Current antiretroviral therapy (ART) does not cure HIV infection but highly suppresses viral replication within a person’s body…”
Like so many other ‘treatments’, those for ‘HIV’ are claimed to be able to manage the condition, as the Science article states,
“HIV-1 virulence is most commonly measured by viral loads (the concentration of viral particles in blood plasma) and CD4 counts (the concentration of CD4+ T cells in peripheral blood, which tracks immune system damage by the virus). Successful treatment with antiretroviral drugs suppresses viral load and interrupts the decline in CD4 counts that would otherwise lead to AIDS.”
There are many other drugs that can be prescribed for someone who has been diagnosed with ‘HIV’, as can be seen by a list provided on the website of the FDA (link in the References at the foot of this article).
One of the drugs is called Truvada, which contains Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF). This drug may be prescribed to people who have not even been diagnosed as having ‘HIV’, as indicated on the Truvada Medication Information Sheet on the CDC website,
“Truvada is sometimes prescribed to some people who do not have HIV infection … to help reduce their chances of getting HIV infection.”
There is, however, a class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of a number of people who were prescribed TDF-based medications, including Truvada. The lawsuit is being filed on the basis that there were less toxic drugs available to them, as an article entitled TDF Injuries: Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild Class Action on the website of the lawyers filing this lawsuit states,
“As a result, Canadians unwittingly and needlessly suffered permanent, debilitating, and sometimes fatal kidney and bone damage.”
At a press conference on 23rd April 1984, Margaret Heckler, the then US Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, announced that “the probable cause of AIDS has been found”, after which she stated that a vaccine was to be available in 2 years, a promise that remains unfulfilled almost four decades later, fortunately, despite many attempts. Unfortunately, those attempts continue, as can be seen by a 3 February 2021 article, entitled First in-human clinical trial confirms novel HIV vaccine approach developed by IAVI and Scripps Research on the Scripps Research website.
This is not the only example, as can be seen by a 5 July 2021 news article entitled HIV vaccine trial starts at Oxford on the website of the University of Oxford.
However, of even greater significance is the 31 January 2022 article entitled First patients vaccinated in clinical trial of HIV experimental vaccine that uses Moderna’s mRNA technology on the CNN website. Unsurprisingly to many, part of the funding for this has been provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The article states,
“In a “proof-of-concept” trial last year, the research team found the HIV antigens produced the desired immune response in 97% of participants. The current trial builds on the previous one by testing the primary version of the vaccine and also a booster version, and by employing Moderna’s mRNA technology, which was previously used to create a successful Covid-19 vaccine.”
The horrendous adverse health effects, including many deaths, that have followed the administration of the ‘COVID vaccine’ should raise serious concerns, to put it mildly, about the use of this technology for people diagnosed with ‘HIV’.
Although many in the so-called ‘alternative health’ field are vehemently against vaccines, there are some confusing reports that claim the COVID injection can cause AIDS. For example, a 16 February 2022 article entitled Covid ‘vaccines’ cause AIDS: proof on the Natural News website states that,
“Evidence continues to mount showing that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) ‘vaccines’ are causing recipients everywhere to develop AIDS.”
The reason that this causes confusion is because it suggests that there is a distinct condition or syndrome that can be identified as being ‘AIDS’, which is not the case. It is abundantly clear from the many reports about the adverse events that have occurred after the administration of a COVID injection that it is harmful, but to refer to any of these adverse effects as ‘AIDS’ is misleading.
The Natural News article refers to the vaccines as having damaged the immune system, but the body does not have an immune system as commonly understood, because there are no ‘germs’ that the body needs to protect itself against through the production of so-called ‘antibodies’.
As explained in our book, the body has the ability to self-heal and self-repair, but not through the injection or ingestion of highly toxic substances.
It cannot be stated sufficiently frequently that the burden of proof for a claim lies with those who make that claim.
With respect to claims about the existence of a pathogenic virus called HIV, that proof has never been provided.
There is nothing to fear; there is no deadly variant of ‘HIV’, because there is no ‘HIV’.
New highly virulent and damaging HIV variant discovered in the Netherlands
WHO HIV/AIDS fact sheet
Types of HIV Tests
Universal Amplification, Next-Generation Sequencing, and Assembly of HIV-1 Genomes
Exposing the HIV variant lie
Whose Antibodies Are They Anyway?
HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests
Antibodies & Immunity: Dispelling Two More Myths
A highly virulent variant of HIV-1 circulating in the Netherlands
Viral genetic variation accounts for a third of variability in HIV-1 set-point viral load in Europe
The Perth Group
New highly virulent and damaging HIV variant discovered in the Netherlands
HIV/AIDS: Medicines to Help You
Truvada Medication Information Sheet
TDF Injuries: Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild Class Action
First in-human clinical trial confirms novel HIV vaccine approach developed by IAVI and Scripps Research
HIV vaccine trial starts at Oxford
First patients vaccinated in clinical trial of HIV experimental vaccine that uses Moderna’s mRNA technology
Covid ‘vaccines’ cause AIDS: proof
This article, republished with permission, originally appeared here.
Copyright © Dawn Lester. All Rights Reserved.
In collaboration with David Parker, Dawn Lester spent more than ten years investigating the real reasons that people become ill using an unbiased and logical approach that enabled them to follow the evidence with open minds. The results of their investigation are revealed in their ground-breaking book, WHAT REALLY MAKES YOU ILL? WHY EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW ABOUT DISEASE IS WRONG.