Introduction
I have tried my best over the past few months to show everyone in the No Virus movement some of the most concrete evidence virology itself has produced in support of the argument that the profession is pseudoscience. I can not begin to describe my frustration that this information has been ignored. I am convinced that it is only because of the fact that this information was brought out by the Perth Group and for some reason people prefer not to discuss their more in depth work. It has been partially highlighted in one of my previous posts (refer to this article: An Update on Virus Isolation) but because of it’s importance I thought that it would be best to dedicate a separate article to these studies. The studies that will be discussed are:
P Gluschankof, 1997. Cell Membrane Vesicles Are a Major Contaminant of Gradient-Enriched Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type-1 Preparations.
Julian W. Bess Jr, 1997. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations.
The Perth Group’s Breakdown
These studies were discussed in detail by the Perth Group (centrally Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos) in what can be considered the best virology takedown ever on published peer reviewed studies. The full video of Eleni explaining the findings as well as additional comments on her communication with some of the authors can be seen below (see a link on Bitchute here and odysee here).
*Note: The above video is from the The Emperors New Virus? - An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV (Documentary) - houseofnumbers
Discussion
The most important sections of this breakdown can be pulled from the longer video above and are discussed here. The most important thing to focus on is the fact that identical results were found in the infected and uninfected cultures.
By 1997 There Was No Proof of the Purification of the HIV Virus
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos explained that by 1997 there was no proof that HIV had been purified. This is two decades into the HIV propaganda campaign. No scientific basis but media propaganda was enough.
Identical Electron Microscopy Results
The electron microscopy (EM) results for the infected cultures were identical to that of the uninfected cultures which is a clear indication that a normal cell culture, without any “virus”, produces the exact same results as an infected cell culture. Which is proof that virology only ever deals with extracellular vesicles (meaning, these are cell features that you will always find in EM imagery irrespective of whether they are “infected” or not).
Below is an image of the EM images for the infected and the uninfected cultures.
Identical Proteomic Results
Eleni explains: “That if the particles that was labeled by Bess as HIV, it would be required for the material which was obtained from the infected cultures to have proteins which was not present in the material that was obtained from none infected cultures but this does not seem to be the case.”
"All the proteins that are found in the so-called infected cultures are also found in the none infected cultures. The difference may be just because of the way the cultures were conducted."
"We asked Bess why he did not label these other three proteins as HIV and he said that they labelled them as HIV because the reviewer asked them to do so even though they did not obtain any evidence that they were HIV proteins."
Below is an image of the proteins claimed by virologists to make up an HIV virus.
Below is an image of the proteins found in the study and we can highlight Eleni’s words from the video above again: "All the proteins that are found in the so-called infected cultures are also found in the none infected cultures. The difference may be just because of the way the cultures were conducted."
Other Failed Controls in Virology
Other failed control tests that were done in the profession as well as published studies noting that the isolation procedure is fraudulent can be seen below (this from the article: Virology the Damning Evidence):
John F Enders, 1954. Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with measles.
Rustigian et al, 1955. Infection of Monkey Kidney Tissue Cultures with Virus-Like Agents.
Cohen et al, 1955. Fluorescent Antibody and Complement-Fixation Tests of Agents Isolated In Tissue Culture from Measles Patients.
Bech and von Magnus, 1959. Studies On Measles Virus Monkey Kidney Tissue Cultures.
F Rapp et al, 1959. Observations of Measles Virus Infection of Cultured Human Cells
C.A. Cassol, 2020 - This paper is described by Andrew Kaufman here as well as by Thomas Cowan here.
Conclusion
Although I have highlighted some important points from the presentation that Eleni gave, I would encourage everyone to see her full presentation below. Her assessment of these studies was so brilliantly done that it leaves no doubt in your mind that virology is pseudoscience. Her comment that the protein analysis of the infected and uninfected cultures are identical with small changes that can be attributed to the way in which the experiment was set up also ties in well with Jamie’s assessment of this technology which can be reviewed here.
Notes:
There are some people that claim that spike proteins are produced by the cells in our body and that this is the cause of disease. This ties in with the well sold nonsense that spike proteins are shed by the body and spreads around to infect others. Based on this presentation I think that it is clear that these proteins are part of cells and whether these cells are infected or not they have the same proteins. This is however only based on the procedures and experiments utilized to “detect” these proteins and there is no proof that this is what happens inside the body nor is there any proof to indicate that the technology that detect these proteins are reliable.
There are also some people that claim that virology does not have valid controls which I consider to be half of the story. The claim is that one should test for all the variables that could influence the results and only this would constitute a valid control. I can however not understand why this would be the argument if virology has produced studies that do show controls which failed. This is the type of damning evidence the No Virus community should be focused on in order to destroy the fallacy that is virology. To claim that there are no valid controls is one thing but to completely neglect discussing those controls that did fail is just unacceptable.
Recommended telegram groups:
Dr Hillman describes how this practice of scientists ignoring/burying the results of their control experiments when they disprove their hypothesis has been prevelant throughout science for ages.
https://www.big-lies.org/harold-hillman-biology/what-price-intellectual-honesty.htm
It is truly infuriating. If the majority of scientists actually had integrity, or intellectual honesty as he put it, the world would be a totally different place.
Great article, again!
I think the more effective attack would be to simply ask why controls are not being performed currently....yes, one could point out the control failures in the past......but bring it back to current-day and SARS-CoV2.....just keep hammering away at this issue i.e. why no valid control experiments......and not MOCK controls either.......full-on negative controls.....they still haven't been able to answer this cogently.....I've been asking since 2020......
Frankie D