![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/1-9-e1687815455650-300x195.png\")
<\/p>\n
That is not a satisfactory answer\u2014even though most people would offer it.<\/p>\n
The question can become very interesting, when you stop and consider researchers working away in biowar labs fiddling with viruses. How do they know they\u2019re tweaking viruses that actually exist?<\/p>\n
On a more mundane frontier, when scientists tell us they\u2019re rushing to develop a vaccine against a virus that is harming the population, how do they know that virus exists to begin with?<\/p>\n
I came to this question when I was researching HIV in 1987. I began to think about it seriously in 1990. During all these years, I\u2019ve reached out to independent researchers, and I\u2019ve tried to stitch together their answers. I can\u2019t say it\u2019s been a smooth trip.<\/p>\n
But I have found some answers; and I have certainly found some fake mainstream assertions, which glitter like baubles on plastic branches of 99-cent store Xmas trees.<\/p>\n
Here are a few clues. You need to take a tissue sample from a live human being. You need to filter that sample correctly so you arrive at a much smaller sample you believe might contain a virus. You need to put a drop of that sample under an electron microscope and observe what looks like a virus.<\/p>\n
How much virus? How many identical particles of virus? Opinions differ on this. It could be one definite virus, one particle. It could be many, many identical particles.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019re trying to prove this virus is actually causing disease in a person, you have to go further. You have to show the very same virus is active and replicating at a very high rate in the person\u2019s body, and his immune system isn\u2019t defeating it. Beyond noticing the patient is sick, how do you test for all that? I\u2019m still looking for a definitive technical answer\u2014if there is one.<\/p>\n
All right, let\u2019s get back to the electron microscope. Let\u2019s say you\u2019ve observed many identical particles of what looks like a virus in the electron microscope photograph, called an EM. You can then say, \u201cFound it<\/em>.\u201d But you need to be sure. You need to figure out that this virus isn\u2019t just something that ordinarily lives in the human body<\/em> like a couch potato and does nothing\u2014a passive endogenous<\/em> virus. No. You want to show this virus comes from the outside as an invader<\/em>\u2014an exogenous<\/em> virus. And how do you perfectly make that differentiation every time? Another question that might have no precise formula as an answer.<\/p>\n Big question: Can we be sure all viruses that are said to exist and said to cause epidemics are actually found and observed and identified on electron microscope photographs? Can we at least say that?<\/p>\n No.<\/p>\n In which case, the researchers have been, at least some of the time, up the creek without a paddle. They\u2019ve jumped the gun. They\u2019ve bolted out of the starting gate too soon. They\u2019ve laid their money down on a horse that may not even be in the race. They\u2019ve written a check no one can cash. They\u2019re talking about lockdowns and quarantines without having proved the virus of the moment exists. Sure, people on the back end will make big money from these unwarranted presumptions, but money is not science. It might control science, but it isn\u2019t science.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve set the stage for an excerpt from an interview, a profound interview with a late mainstream master who, in the face of fake science, suddenly was characterized as a rebel, Etienne De Harven. The interview was conducted several years ago by the brilliant reporter Celia Farber. You can find the whole interview here<\/a>. I strongly suggest you read it many times. Yes, it gets technical. You\u2019ll also notice names of elite scientists you haven\u2019t run across. Learn the meaning of the words you\u2019ve never seen before. Dig in. This isn\u2019t television-type brush-off conversation. This isn\u2019t a YouTube throwaway.<\/p>\n I have another reason for exposing readers to this interview\u2014it\u2019s what a conversation about serious scientific issues looks like, this is what trying to bridge the gap between researchers, honest reporters, and the public looks like. There should be hundreds and thousands of such print-interviews taking place, laid before readers. They can handle it. Dumbing down people is partly an illusion: they can wake up. They WILL wake up if they\u2019re sufficiently interested.<\/p>\n Etienne De Harven\u2019s background: president of the Electron Microscopy Society of America; researcher, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Cornell professor of cell biology; professor of pathology, University of Toronto; recognized pioneer in the field of electron microscopy.<\/p>\n The interview focuses on HIV; whether it was ever found and isolated. The implications and questions spread out to any and all viruses.<\/p>\n *******<\/p>\n De Harven<\/strong>: Unacceptably frustrated by the total lack of success in all attempts to demonstrate virus particles in human cancer by EM, the \u201cimpresarios\u201d of the cancer\/virus \u201cdream\u201d (Gallo, Fauci, and others) totally engaged in the molecular approach.<\/p>\n Consequently, they invented molecular markers to compensate for the missing viral particles. This would have been acceptable if the specificity of these new molecular markers would have been clearly established. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The most misleading molecular marker was probably the first one, i.e. the enzyme [called] reverse transcriptase (RT). Following Temin and Baltimore 1970 papers in Science<\/em>, the RT enzymatic activity has been, most abusively, used as a specific retroviral marker. Both Temin and Baltimore demonstrated RT activity in samples of supposedly \u201cpurified<\/em>\u201d retrovirus.<\/p>\n Embarrassingly, they both omitted to verify the purity of their samples by EM. Some of their samples were simply purchased from a commercial company. True, the label on the vials read \u201cpure retrovirus<\/em>\u201d. However, it was known that these commercial \u201cpure retrovirus<\/em>\u201d were heavily contaminated by cellular debris!<\/p>\n And since it is also known that all cells contain RT (see Varmus), cellular debris are most likely carrying similar RT enzymes.<\/p>\n Temin and Baltimore did not, therefore, prove that RT is a specific molecular marker for retroviruses. It would have been so simple to check, by EM, the degree of purity of the samples they used. This would have, most probably, shown important cell debris contamination, and would have obliged Temin and Baltimore to be much more cautious in the interpretation of their results. In 1975, the members of the Nobel Committee, most regrettably, failed to scrutinize this purity problem.<\/p>\n In 1983, at Pasteur Institute in Paris, reliance on the RT marker was a key element in the claimed \u201cisolation<\/em>\u201d of a new retrovirus [HIV]. Still, Montagnier himself recognized \u201cWe did not purify<\/em>\u201d. He dangerously omitted to consider the misleading interference of cell debris, just as Temin and Baltimore did in 1970.<\/p>\n But a paper on the discovery of a new retrovirus looks much better if it contains at least one EM picture! So, members of Montagnier\u2019s team spent hours at the TEM [transmission electron microscope], looking at their mixed cell cultures, and they found the virus!<\/p>\n It is, by the way, a good quality EM picture. It shows unquestionable retroviral particles, budding at the surface of a cell. But the legend of this image states that this cell is a cord blood lymphocyte. Indeed, cord blood lymphocytes were admixed to these complex cell cultures (why?)<\/p>\n Montagnier and his co-workers should have known that human embryonic tissues, and the placenta in particular, are very rich in endogenous retroviruses (HERVs), and that cord blood lymphocytes should therefore be expected to carry the same endogenous retroviruses (under the TEM, endogenous and exogenous viruses, looking identical, cannot be distinguished.)<\/p>\n The budding of these particles has perhaps been stimulated by some of the growth factors also present in these cell cultures. An essential control would have been to repeat the experiment using lymphocytes from the peripheral blood instead of from cord blood. This control is unfortunately missing.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/2-28-e1687815592827-300x189.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/3-20-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n