TLAV Positively False- The Program That Never Got Shown Discussing the HIVAIDS Illusion

Video Transcript:

I want to start off with this incredible video. Somebody sent this to me today. This is posted of November 20th, 2015. Now it's called Positively False. I believe this is their title for it. The program that never got shown is a good title. But as it says here, Channel 4 News report from 1998, which challenges identification of HIV. Now we're talking isolation here. You're going to find this video to be very relevant to today. I mean, you could literally put this entire conversation and remove the HIV AIDS points. And it would look like they're talking about COVID-19. It's exactly the same, or at least from our perspective. And highlights anomalies between different HIV test kits, false positives. What? Yes, the whole thing. This is exactly like what we're seeing today. It's almost like it's the same agenda. Sort of like we're pivoting back into now, it seems. Below is some of the correspondence relating to the 18 month buildup in the proposed one-hour documentary for dispatches, Channel 4 that was to be transmitted on World AIDS Day 1998. We were given development money to carry out a series of tests together with the Robins Institute at Surrey University, which showed up to some serious anomalies in the HIV test results from three different commercial test kits. Now it says they decided to not to go ahead with the World AIDS Day special and suggested instead that they make a short report for Channel 4 on that day. Now ultimately, this got shelved. This ultimately did not end up getting revealed to people, and I think that's very, very, very clear. Now, even back then, now whether or not you agree with this, the point that they went to all the effort to make this happen, interviewed everybody, and these were highly credentialed experts talking about this. And when you hear what they have to say, it won't be shocking to you why they pushed it aside, but recognize what that shows you. This is not like we're talking about today. This is being shoved away because fake news and he compares it there, whatever, they're talking points. These people respected, and they put it away anyway, which means there was an agenda. At least that's how I see it. The challenge to the existence of HIV was made public on the first day of the 1998 Geneva World AIDS Conference. In the VAR session for three, a team of international scientists presented their conclusions. HIV has never been identified and there's no proof that such a virus exists. Hear that? According to the very well-exit. I mean, that's right how it starts. Now, what's funny is that would never even be allowed into the studio today. You're not allowed to challenge that, but the point is these are experts. These are scientists and doctors and experts that are saying, look, we have a different opinion, and here's what it is. It was more acceptable back then, obviously still being suppressed. But today, I mean, it's weird. It's clown world today. Like there is no, anybody, no matter how credentialed, how what an expert they are on a dime, could be the highest regarded person on the planet. And if you say the wrong thing, oh, well, he was a conspiracy theorist and we didn't see it. Really? So what about everything else that you were highly regarded before? It's ridiculous. And we need to see that and how obvious that is. It's subjective. So these people are telling you that they believe that there was never such a thing. Not necessarily that it didn't just cause AIDS, but it didn't even exist. First day of the 1998 Geneva World AIDS Conference. In the vast session for a free team of international scientists presented their conclusions. HIV has never been identified and there's no proof that such a virus exists. Which they went down to treat. Conclusion to the very well accepted method for a travel isolation. HIV has never been isolated. And we're talking about coaxed postulates, right? The thing that they're trying to dismiss left and right today because you know what? They haven't met it today either. They claim that HIV antibody tests cannot prove infection and that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease caused by a single infectious agent. Every single prediction of the HIV theory has filed. It was first suggested that a retrovirus HIV was and I quote the probable cause of AIDS at a US government press conference in 1984. Since then it's been generally accepted that AIDS is an infectious disease transmitted through blood and sex. So let's show you understand that first of all. NU endosstatement, argument, subjective point by the government becomes fact. Right. So it's probable becomes forever accepted fact. Don't miss that. How ridiculous is that? That's exactly what we're seeing today. Fear now be kind of circumventing that well, we don't know for sure, but let's just do it because we're safety. It doesn't even matter. It just run run right over the top of it. Probable means it didn't prove it and that didn't matter because there was far more behind the scenes going on here. If however, as the scientists maintain, AIDS is not an infectious sexually transmitted disease, then AIDS research has been wrongly directed for 15 years. Or intentionally misdirected because of what they wanted to achieve by using you and your fear to get that done. See how that works? Certainly possible, certainly questionable, especially with what we're seeing take place today. Isolation is necessary to identify any virus. At the Pastore Institute in Paris, guidelines were arrived at for the isolation of retroviruses, which HIV is said to be. The culture products must be spun and same-shaped particles banded at a precise density core purifying. This must be confirmed with an electron microscope image. Now, this is what people like Kauffman and Cowan have been pointing at and screaming about from the beginning and they're absolutely right. I mean, there are very clear definitions, these words, isolation, purification, they have not done that. And they make the same point here in HIV AIDS in this discussion that they simply never did it. And this is very clear what they say next. They, when they finally look at this stuff and even confirm it later, 15 years later, it's completely over. It's just basically cell debris. They lied and they got caught lying and it's still nothing changed. It's the same thing today. How I mean yesterday was pretty clear to me that we can see the timeline where the genetic code was sent and everybody started making injections. They never looked back. They never had an isolate and they admitted that even if they did it later, which I still question, I don't believe. The CDC's from China said we didn't isolate the virus. That's the timeframe when that happened. And so two days after they got the genetic code, it was already being made into injections. I've shown this a hundred times. So are we really pretending that they just went ahead with it, assuming that it would later be isolated and then made that their work wouldn't change based on verification that it was real or not? I mean, it's just absurd. Same thing happened then. In terms of Australia, a team of scientists lead the growing ranks of researchers around the world arguing that what is called HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, has not been isolated for proper identification by the people who claim to have discovered it. HIV has never been isolated. This assumption has been postulated only by indirect means. Indirect means, like testing for antibody reactions, to not satisfy a professor at the end of the harbour, a leading pioneer in the technique for imaging retroviruses with electron microscopes. I'm absolutely dismayed to find out that for about 15 years, the essential control of electron microscopy was neglected, completely neglected. It's only very recently, about two years ago, that two papers came out in which finally electron microscopy was used to verify the presence of virus particles in samples which were for all these 15 years, regarded as pure virus. To my greatest dismay, these pictures were showing practically nothing else but said debris. This is incredible. This is exactly why this stuff is they don't want you to see this stuff. This is how the kind of censorship we've been living through for a long time is very clear like this. But the technocratic level we're getting into is going to be exponentially worse. Think about a heart, this won't be exist in that world. You're not supposed to see this, is the point. What they're telling you right here in the same information, is not plenty of people out there in experts and books that have been written to tell you all this stuff, but they make sure that you don't see it. The fact that emerging viruses that I keep referencing, which was sort of the impetus for a lot of the stuff I'm talking about today, is one of those books. What the problem is that they dismiss that stuff and they say conspiracy theory. But it says that, well, they're fake news. That's how this goes today. They verifiably said it was pure virus. We knew it. It was HIV. We know for sure, just like they said today. 15 years later, they finally actually do the research and it's very clear that it was basically cell debris, which means which is exactly what Coffin's been saying, what the rest of them is saying that's not purified. It's a jumble. By the way, actually, John Rapaport has been on this from day one screaming about this in each right. But this is just a jumble soup of genetic stuff and they just say, here we go. There's there's libraries in there somewhere. So we're right. This is exactly what happened then. I do not think this is a coincidence. I think just like the epidemic that wasn't the New York Times article from 2007 about the PCR test and how that was used, they claimed then accidentally. That was a test run. The point is nonetheless, whether it was accidental or not, it was a guideline in my opinion and a use it again, whether this was accidental or intentional. I think they're clearly using like step by step the same thing, the same agenda, the same effort. And again, just not be obtuse about it. They just who have the people we're talking about just to you know, I could pinpoint all sorts of people that I think are playing roles in this and plenty of others that I think are just unknowingly being manipulated, whether they're good people or not. The hierarchy is laving you, right? The whatever we're talking about, the people that are behind this, whoever you may think that is, just recognize that there are people in powerful authority positions that are actively lying to you about this stuff. That's very clear. Just I know people don't like when you tend to use the word, you know, the obtuse they, but you know, there is an ultimate discussion to be had about what that means, especially with the coalescing of power, condensing of power around the world government essentially, world economic forum, the UN, the, I mean, we see this happening right now, the public private partnership of the global governance that's happening right now. Michelle Chowstowski, professor, the one that kind of put that thought in my mind, I think is absolutely right. Now let's get back to this. This magazine offers support and information for HIV diagnosed people and publishes the work of scientists critical of the virus aid theory. Yeah, and where's that today? Right, right? Like, I mean, sure there's probably some fringe posts, they'll call it, but you know, there's not going to be a mainstream magazine that will allow that kind of conversation today. Think about it, think how much has even changed since then. In October 1997, I published an interview with professor Luke Montagne, who first claimed to have discovered HIV. His team had not been able to purify HIV. Well, of course we looked for it. We saw some particles, but they didn't have the morphology of retroviruses. He later said, I repeat, we did not purify. Very important. Now, yes, this is the person that recently passed away, the person that originally discovered it, essentially. And in fact, he's a Nobel laureate because of it as I understand it, but the bottom line is he made it clear. And this is where his skepticism stems from. He did not purify this. And yet everything went from there anyway. So as the person from the beginning, you almost maybe feel responsible, right? And whatever it is, it drove him to be quite the contrary and about this. And he up until the day he died was beginning ready to testify about what he thinks is happening today. Of course, he untimely has a, you know, just like just like Carrie Moly's kind of situation. Maybe it was natural. Maybe it wasn't. At the end of the day, it's unfortunate that right before it was about to be some bombshell testimony, he ended up passing away. He did not purify it and neither did anybody else. It was startling that Professor Montagne decided to acknowledge in his interview with Jamel Tahi and continue that as far back as 1983, his team were not able to purify anything that you might call HIV. Now real quick, why that's so important is not because it's not just because no one knew. It's because up until that point, they've been pretending that was the case that it had been. And now he's coming, that's why it's such a bombshell coming out in this article, pointing back and saying, I repeat, I never purify that did not happen. So it was challenging the overall narrative. And that's why this stuff was never allowed to be put out, guys. It's very clear that this is undermining the entire premise for what actually happened then and they're using that same model today. Well, he turned a Roman effort. So who should be surprised that when the same thing was attempted by expert laboratories in Germany and United States who published their results in the journal, Viralogy, what they found was proteins and cellular debris. Now make sure you didn't miss what he just said there. This is the most important part for that section there. That after he said that on the record, Germany, the United States, they went out to basically prove him wrong and guess what? Proved him right and documented it that they found cell debris. What happened then? They admitted they were wrong and everything changed and they stopped giving a note. Nope. The narrative kept going forward and this got shelved just like always happens. And then I decided to acknowledge in his interview with Jamel Tahin, continue that as far back as turned a Roman effort. So who should be surprised that when the same thing was attempted by expert laboratories in Germany and United States who published their results in the journal, Viralogy, what they found was proteins and cellular debris. If there is such a thing as an AIDS-causing retrovirus, then it's unique body parts. That is its proteins. Should only be found in HIV positive individuals and individuals who have AIDS. But this is not the case. All the principal HIV proteins have been found in all manner of cells from healthy human beings who are HIV negative. After that, that's exactly what people are talking about today. So this is the example of which highly suggests, or obviously they found when they did the research that it was just cell debris and different protein. It was a jumbled up soup of genetic garbage. And so now when you're tested, you're finding it in normal people, healthy things. And then what happens then? When you test people and you go, you've got it. Do they? Or are you testing and finding something that was in that mix that you're finding in normal people? There's a lot of ways you can see how this is manipulated. And it's the exact same argument that people like John Rappaport have been making about what's going on today. I don't know. This is so incredibly profound about where we are right now. That's what he's telling you. You've found it ever. And then you realize that the testing leads to the treatment, which leads to the problem if that's what you believe is happening. So it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. So can these commonly occurring protein markers ever prove the presence of HIV? There is no way to test for HIV. This is because all the tests are based on indirect markers. Right. Same argument people make today about COVID-19, right? Did they were testing for how? How can we possibly test for something if we've never actually isolated and said this is the thing? You will get full and then shocker. We have a ridiculously high level of false positives, which I actually think is in highly intentional. It's this is becoming impossible to miss. One of which has been validated by proving that the markers are positive only when the virus is present. The only type of test routinely used in England and Wales is called an ELISA antibody test. It reacts if a person's blood has enough antibodies that find with a set of test kit proteins. Well, that's very revealing. Okay, so remember we talked about this yesterday, right? Dr. Bailey, I recommend you watch your video again in depth, talks about how the University of Queensland injection with the HIV clamp caused people to produce HIV antibodies, which I promise you is being re-engineered. Right now that's being driven into the mRNA HIV injection, but the point is that's not supposed to be the way that worked out. They shuffled it and said, oh, they caused false positives. Well, no, that's the half the truth, isn't it? It caused false positives because the only test you have for HIV is to test for antibodies, which doesn't even mean you have HIV. You have to understand that. That's why Dr. Bailey made that point so clear that they're test, basically by their own test and definition of HIV, people that are producing the antibodies have HIV, but that's not the case. That's just the definition they gave because that's the only test they could use. You see how subjective and self-serving that is? Now at the same time, you're making that thing happen back then. Now then you have to ask, was that just antibodies or was there something else? And the same thing further to the day. These are up in the air, in my opinion. But they're saying that that's the only test they have. Now think of the interesting correlation to where we're dealing with today and how that ends up being something that they use to justify the treatment for COVID, which ends up driving in the problem. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, in my opinion, that leads to the very thing that they then claim is the problem they tried to stop. Protein still marketed as belonging only to HIV. If it reacts, the color density changes. These changes are a matter of degree. High or no? Not yes or no. Peter Nichols is a 25-year-old gay man. He volunteered to take part in a research project, coordinated for Channel 4. His blood was tested on three HIV test kits commonly used by laboratories. Oh, and don't forget, I just remembered this. Remember what they're telling you? Their new prep HIV drug, the way it's supposed to be used. You take it before you get sick and you take it every day. Yeah, think about that. I wonder how that's going to work out. The blood samples will run through the kits twice by London University Medical School under different code numbers. Each time Peter's blood tested positive, but several weeks later, Peter tested negative at St Mary's Hospital West London and again negative at the Royal Free in North London. Okay, so this is interesting. So this kid gets tested positive. Then gets test negative. Same thing we're seeing today and it just goes against another test against another negative and goes, okay, I'm negative. It's just, it's exactly what we're seeing today with PCR and the manipulation they're in. And that could stem from the sloppy way that the PCR test is being applied where it shouldn't right, but it could also be more than that. It could be like we're seeing today based on the fact that it's never isolated and that you're jumbled in like the guy said earlier in the point there that you're finding these things in people that are healthy and that have no connection to this. I think and whether that's intentional or just sloppy is, you know, for you to decide, but it leads in the same direction, doesn't it? How did he feel about these conflicting results? Confused in a way. Obviously glad that now having received two sets of negative results. I mean, obviously fairly confident that I'm actually negative at. Why? Confused as to why I would not that I'm in suggesting that it's just funny that, you know, one positive to negative is why would you be fairly confident? Like you just assume the positive must have been the one off. Like it's just so strange the way we take at face value what they tell us you're supposed to think. It's just it never goes away. People want to believe that these people want your best interest or have your best interest in heart. See the positive results in first place from the experiment that we did and how many other close positive results are there placing around that people don't know about. Right. How many false positives are happening that we aren't addressing? Right? So we're told they had HIV that didn't in fact have it and how many people then got treatment for it that didn't need it and then that caused all sorts of problems that then got labeled as whatever else you want to name it. Maybe it doesn't get connected to it. Maybe it gets called something else. Maybe it causes a heart attack and we don't even think about these things today or back then today it's become nobody can ignore it even though they really try to that this is causing all sorts of things to explode and statistically speaking you can't ignore this right? Whether you're talking about all cause mortality or whether you're causing you know age it's everything mental issues. I mean it's through the roof. Now the only thing they try to pretend is oh well you know COVID and anxiety and what I it's just becoming embarrassing to watch how the one clear difference has been this mass experimental genetic therapy administration across the population and everyone's having the same weird explosions and the same interesting problems and we act like you know just they anxious and lock downs or whatever except the lock downs were safe and we should do it again but you know all over the place. Peter had sufficient concentration of antibodies to turn some of the test positive but does this mean he has a deadly virus? See so he had antibodies in his body which turned the test positive. Okay so how did he get antibodies if he didn't have HIV oops you see what I mean it doesn't matter though it just take it take your two negatives and go on the point is that this did something to him this is what we're seeing today with the antibodies or just with the adult virus injections that create the susceptibility for it which is basically just what we're seeing with the injections today lowering your immune system. Disregulating your immune system. You know immune auto deficiency or immune dysray. I mean there's a lot of different ways you could look at this. Immune suppression. I mean it's it to me it kind of feels like we're in the same wheelhouse and it's just giving we're just giving it names. We're watching people give us treatments that are hurting your body whether we're talking about antibody dependent enhancement which is what Luke Montenegro seemed to be focused on or however else you want to frame it to just blame it on something that they clearly have not proven is what they say it was and see the same thing have happened before with the same arguments being made with the same people undermining the validity of it. Come on at some point we have to realize that we're being manipulated. There are already 62 known conditions which can lead to a positive result on an HIV test. Do you hear that too? 62 different things that could cause an HIV test to cause positive right so that that testing seems really sound but today all of a sudden the University of Queensland injection causes false positive. Oh my god the whole thing shut it down. We can't allow that. We can't allow 63 different things to cause problems for the testing. Only 62 is acceptable. That's seriously the argument was that's why I can't allow that. I think it's like a ridiculous that is. These include flu and flu vaccines arthritis hepatitis B vaccine, lupus, candidiasis, malaria, TB and leprosy. The flu vaccine so they're telling you that people take a flu vaccine and could get a false positive for HIV. Did they know that? I promise you that wasn't a public discussion until this talked about it. They were just like today. They're saying get your flu shot. Get it alongside this. It'll be better. Make you safe but that's not true. Just like it's not true today. They never test these things next to each other and in fact it's pretty clearly just like I mean don't forget the Pentagon study from the beginning of this. That Archea Junior talked about that we talked about the idea that the Pentagon study before this started tested coronaviruses in general in regard to the flu shot and found that it the flu shot increased your risk of coronavirus infections. All whether it's common cold or whatever else. This is before COVID-19. On top of that it found that it just increased your general risk of infection. 36% in fact and yet they want you to take that shot alongside the injection for COVID even though they haven't tested it too for safety issues. Yeah that doesn't sound like they are having your safety in mind. Does it? It sounds like they almost want problems to happen. So in this case we're seeing the same thing. Flu shot increases the HIV positives and they were given the flu shot at the same time. Problem reaction solution or rather self-serving agenda. What is called AIDS is made up of 29 diseases all of which existed long before the AIDS errors. These diseases involve fangle, micro bacterial and other infection, producing antibodies which could react with a so-called HIV protein. Says Dr. Philip Mutima ahead of the UK virus reference laboratory which sets HIV testing guidelines. There can be misleading cross reactions. It may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to HIV infection. Wow. It may be impossible to relate an antibody response specifically to that infection. Didn't stop them from trying like hell didn't it? And don't forget when you give somebody that something that creates antibodies for something that you don't need especially when you don't have a test that proves that's even what you're making them for. What can that do? Cause lots of problems. They're trying to train the body's immune system to target the right part of the virus because guessing it wrong can be dangerous. We know that historically with coronaviruses that if you do vaccinate with the wrong kind of vaccine for instance domestic cats who have a similar viral infection that you can make the disease more severe. Yeah, and we've seen him say that. We've seen Ryan Cole say that. We even saw Dr. Fauci say that with his interview with Metta back on 2020. Right? Telling you that can happen and then once it starts to happen acting like it's a conspiracy theory because that's what honest people do. Right? Well, here we are. Impossible to relate and that's why I think not only were these things causing people to have all sorts of problems like antibody dependent enhancement, I think all of this was just lumped into a problem called AIDS. That's what I think. There's plenty of examples to show that this is clearly undermined at the very least by plenty of experts. And then you could ask which is what I got into yesterday. How then could this thing possibly spread? Which some people say seem to think it did? Well, I I posit the simple idea that we are watching at least especially we're talking about today and it's probably the similar thing we're dealing with back then that the spike protein itself can spread. Now I argue that the same kind of concept is probably capable then or possible then or maybe even the idea that we're talking about something that wasn't spreading like a virus ramp through the population but was simply something that was being given to them for the treatment. You see there's two different ways you can look at that. I'm not pretending I know for sure. I don't think anybody does. Other than the people that are lying to us. But just like Denny Rancourt would argue today, it's clear that you could make these things happen with nothing other than narrative and conflating other manipulative statistics and metrics. But you could also argue that there's something that they would insert to add to that point. I don't know why we would doubt that. But it's up to you to come to your own conclusions. Section. One of the world's leading manufacturers of the ELISA design of test says in its 1997 literature. ELISA testing alone cannot be used for diagnosing AIDS even if it suggests a high probability that the antibody to HIV is present. Oh, what does that sound like? You know, even though they did though, right? So you can't do this but we're going to do it anyway just like we did today and they said the same thing. Oh, look at that. So what about Omicron, right? Oh, it's okay. We'll just say when we don't get this S gene, we'll just pretend that's Omicron, which moments ago we were calling false. Okay. That's self-serving. Right. Same idea. Well, it's a high-prep. It's highly probable that the present, when you see this thing. So let's use that to go on. No. That's an easily manipulatable subjective standing point, which is what they love. If it's not definitive, it'll be proven. They all they do just like that is they pretend we're an emergency. We have to do what we can in the moment. That's how they get you. Most people who test positive remain well. Indeed, antibodies are usually a sign of protection against illness. Okay. And again, the point is maybe because most of them didn't have anything. So what is causing what is described as AIDS? Well for 15 years, AIDS has been linked with certain risks, like intravenous drug use, long-term recreational drug use, multiple sexual partners, malnutrition, and certain clinical risks involving the transfusion of blood products. Even to this day, same argument. When the body is at risk of... Despite Fauci suggesting more than once that it's spread by being around people, which is obviously what started all the, don't get near people or don't spit on people or you're going to get AIDS transmit. Yeah, right. That's where that all came from. And he was wrong now, like he's wrong now. Or intentionally so. This is called oxidative stress can escalate. Cell struggle for energy, and the immune system can be seriously weakened. People who suffer from the illness's group disease show severe oxidative stress. The oxidative stress theory has remained true to all its predictions. For example, AIDS patients, HIV-AIDS patients are known to be oxidized. The degree of oxidation determines the rate of progression to AIDS, and antioxidants are able to curb this progression. Simple antioxidants. Think about that. The most urgent need to redirect research funding. Funds should go to laboratories working on other IDs totally independent from HIV and no longer restricted to laboratories working on the hypothesis which has never been proven. Right. I suppose. And think about that today with the funding and the way that this continues to go forward. Right? Instead of like he's talking about working on things that we know work on, you know, early treatments and other things that are proven to have an effect, no, no, no, we're jumping money into the experimental direction we want to go in and acting like that's in your best interest, speaking as of them. Alicis, of what's going on, shows the massive power of vested interest, but the change is happening. The change has got to happen if there's no evidence of a virus. We can't go on living in this and make believe world. And yet we did. Right? That's why this was never allowed to see the light of day. And these are experts guys. These are highly credentialed medical scientific experts. But of course today they'd be called fake news anti science conspiracy theorists because they dare to challenge the narrative. You know how this goes, right? Same old, same old.