The Nobel Prize That Was Given To A Scientist Primarily For Not Being Bob Gallo. He Did Not Believe HIV Was The Cause Of AIDS, And In 1997, He Made A Full Confession (If you read carefully)

The Fossil Record of The Great War Will Now Have To Start Producing Fragments, As Arrivistes Seek To Abort The History Of the Virus Existential Matter

“How absurd it all seems, without any proof.”

Pete Townshend, (song: “1921” Tommy.)

It’s one of the iconic quotes of the 30 year HIV war, which began in 1987, and fell to the enemy, (was lost) in 2008.

”I repeat, we did not purify.”

—Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate, “co-discoverer” of “HIV.”

The incredibly bizarre description of LM’s 1/4 Nobel prize for discovering “human immunodeficiency virus” here.

Djamel Tahi’s historic piece here.

An outtake: Read and weep. Read slowly—

Interview, Djamel Tahi and Luc Montagnier, published in Continuum, 1997

[I have bold-faced words that stand out to me, more and more, so many years after this bombshell came out. Now I can see how it all crystalizes, purifies, if you will—]

DT: When one looks at the published electron microscope photographs, for you as a retrovirologist it is clear it's a retrovirus, a new retrovirus?

LM: No, at that point one cannot say. With the first budding pictures it could be a type C virus. One cannot distinguish. (16)

DT: Could it be anything else than a retrovirus?

LM: No.. well, after all, yes .. it could be another budding virus. But there's a ... we have an atlas. One knows a little bit from familiarity, what is a retrovirus and what is not. With the morphology one can distinguish but it takes a certain familiarity. (17)

DT: Why no purification?

LM: I repeat we did not purify. We purified to characterise the density of the RT, which was soundly that of a retrovirus. But we didn't take the peak...or it didn't work...because if you purify, you damage. So for infectious particles it is better to not touch them too much. So you take simply the supernatant from the culture of lymphocytes which have produced the virus and you put it in a small quantity on some new cultures of lymphocytes. And it follows, you pass on the retrovirus serially and you always get the same characteristics and you increase the production each time you pass it on. (18)

DT: So the stage of purification is not necessary?

LM: No, no, it's not necessary. What is essential is to pass on the virus. [Ed: Red flag alert.] The problem Peron had with the multiple sclerosis virus was that he could not pass on the virus from one culture to another. That is the problem. He managed it a very little, not enough to characterise it. And these days to characterise means above all at the molecular standard. If you will, the procedure goes more quickly. So to do it : a DNA, clone this DNA, amplify it, sequence it, etc..So you have the DNA, the sequence of the DNA which tells you if it is truly a retrovirus. One knows the familiar structure of retroviruses, all the retroviruses have a familiar genomic structure with such and such a gene which is characteristic. (19)

DT: So, for isolation of retroviruses the stage of purification is not obligatory? One can isolate retroviruses without purifying?

LM: Yes .. one is not obliged to transmit pure material. It would be better, but there is the problem that one damages it and diminishes the infectivity of the retrovirus. (20)

DT: Without going through this stage of purification, isn't there a risk of confusion over the proteins that one identifies and also over the RT which could come from something else?

LM: No .. after all, I repeat if we have a peak of RT at the density of 1.15, 1.16, there are 999 chances out of 1,000 that it is a retrovirus. But it could be a retrovirus of different origin. I repeat, there are some endogenous retroviruses, pseudo-particles which can be emitted by cells, but even so, from the part of the genome that provides retroviruses. And which one acquires through heredity, in the cells for a very long time. But finally I think for the proof - because things evolve like molecular biology permitting even easier characterisation these days - it's necessary to move on very quickly to cloning. And that was done very quickly, as well by Gallo as by ourselves. Cloning and sequencing, and there one has the complete characterisation. But I repeat, the first characterisation is the belonging to the lentivirus family, the density, the budding, etc.. the biological properties, the association with the T4 cells. All these things are part of the characterisation, and it was us who did it. (21)

DT: But there comes a point when one must do the characterisation of the virus. This means: what are the proteins of which it's composed?

LM: That's it. So then, analysis of the proteins of the virus demands mass production and purification. It is necessary to do that. And there I should say that that partially failed. J.C. Chermann was in charge of that, at least for the internal proteins. And he had difficulties producing the virus and it didn't work. But this was one possible way, the other way was to have the nucleic acid, cloning, etc. It's this way which worked very quickly. The other way didn't work because we had at that time a system of production which wasn't robust enough. One had not enough particles produced to purify and characterise the viral proteins. It couldn't be done. [Ed: Red flag alert, Peter Duesberg was right.] One couldn't produce a lot of virus at that time because this virus didn't emerge in the immortal cell line. We could do it with the LAI virus, but at that time we did not know that. (22)

DT: Gallo did it?

LM: Gallo? .. I don't know if he really purified. I don't believe so. I believe he launched very quickly into the molecular part, that's to say cloning . What he did do is the Western Blot.

[Ed: !!!!!!]

Put simply: The “HIV test” causes AIDS.

I think EM pioneer Etienne de Harven may have made that observation.

It was the new yellow star— Gallo’s Western Blot, which was patented the day before or after he declared in aviator glasses that his lab had found the “probable cause of AIDS,” [Heckler.] It meant a person, (99% certain to be gay,) was getting onto a death train. That person’s blood was expressing some kind of yet-to-be-understood cellular toxicity/detoxification cycling but were told by way of MK ultra level mind trauma via mass media there was a “deadly virus” ticking like a time bomb in them. This was what we went to battle over.

Here it is again, the press conference that broke western civilization:

What does Heckler mean by “this new process?”

It has all the fantastical elements of all the great American PSYOPs of the last century: It’s so out there that it flew.

The “deadly virus” origin story could quite literally not have been more racist, in addition to being generally genocidal.

So racist you can even really speak it without being faintly compromised.

Imitating a basic AIDS believing media soaked person 80s, 90s, and through at least 2008:

“Didn’t the virus come from a monkey in Africa? Somebody had sex with a monkey? And then it spread via that flight attendant.”

Look what comes up if you “Google” the words AIDS and Monkeys and Africa:

“People also ask

“Where did AIDS come from and how did it start?

“Studies show that HIV may have jumped from chimpanzees to humans as far back as the late 1800s. The chimpanzee version of the virus is called simian immunodeficiency virus. It was probably passed to humans when humans hunted these chimpanzees for meat and came in contact with their infected blood.

About HIV/AIDS | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC

https://www.cdc.gov › hiv › basics › whatishiv

Search for: Where did AIDS come from and how did it start?

“Why did AIDS spread so quickly in Africa?

“In addition, in sub-Saharan Africa AIDS is the leading killer and a large reason for the high transmission rates is because of the lack of education provided to youth. When infected, most children die within one year because of the lack of treatment.”

***

Breathe.

Let’s continue, as that text above requires no commentary.

Except—wait.

Let me tell you what they used to say. The liberal AIDS establishment used to say AIDS spread like “wildfire” in Sub Saharan Africa because African men prefer dry sex, I kid you not. And this dry sex caused “micro-abrasions” in the vaginal walls of African women, giving HIV portals of entree it did not enjoy anywhere in the developed world. Like, not even for Bill Clinton, Jeffrey Epstein, or Harvey Weinstein!

How about that? This racist fantasy came from Michael Specter at The New Yorker.

I used to stand back, at gatherings, and let them walk into their own racist NPR manholes.

"What about Africa?” they’d say.

“What about it?” I’d say.

“It’s really bad there. It’s like, rampant.”

“Really? Why?”

“The way they have sex is different.”

“Really? What kind of sex exactly are they having over there, that this thing has “exploded” there, but been a complete dud, or wet match, here?”

“Well…Because they prefer dry sex. And they use herbs to dry out the vaginal walls. I read about it in The New Yorker. Definitely, they have different kinds of sex there.”

When I succeeded in staying calm, and yes, there are real memories of real conversations, I’d say:

“Let me see if I understand you right. You think African men prefer their women to be in a state of sexual discomfort?”

If they hadn’t walked away by then, I pushed further, with sarcasm they could never seem to detect.

“African men like to replicate conditions of involuntary sex? Is that kind of like…rape? Who said this? Michael Specter? Wow. This I have to read.”

From a sadistic periodical that, thanks to Peter Thiel, no longer exists, as it published stolen sex tapes, or some such—this mean little illiterate period piece. For the record, I did not make 56 errors, nor did Harper’s publish a piece with 56 errors. But this was the wig and clown face fitted to my article and name. The article was problematic for them to say the least. It opens with a murder scene. A pregnant black single mother named Joyce Ann Hafford, is murdered. AIDS activists were outraged that Harper’s objected to this murder. Gay men were supposed to have more than 100 “HIV drugs” at their disposal, and if pregnant women had to die when some of them were being “tested”, well, so what? Read the breathtaking “takedown” document here, and see a lurid display of how (white, male) “AIDS activists” believed pregnant black women being sacrificed for the advancement of their insatiable HIV drug demands was totally normal and part of the Greater Good.

How many of you know about the Padian paper?

Caucasians have loads of sex, as Liam Scheff used to say, “all kinds of ways” but utterly fail to get “HIV” or “AIDS” like only Africans have mastered. Linked above.

And then there was the Patient Zero myth. Randy Shilts told me personally that he made up the Patient Zero story.

And The Band Played On was a work of fiction. I should say “myth.” And this myth swelled into something that began to swallow civilization, along with classical, evidence based “science.”

We became a culture that moved into, lived in, zones of post-reality, which we defended ardently and even viciously. The American right to live, speak and believe psychedelia, or “myth,” because a matrix of “global AIDS researchers” and “treatment activists” were enjoying the moral stranglehold they had on you—the power and the money. But mostly the power. To stomp on your face every time your fear of HIV, or hesitation about their increased funding to fund their saving-lives lifestyles diminished and rose, conversely.

I urge you all to subscribe to this substack, written by Steve Nagel, whose daughter and grandson were chemically murdered by AIDS Inc.

A brief history lesson, next time you hear one of the (sorry, this is catty) arrivistes take a shot at Duesberg, for being a blocker of progress, for believing retroviruses “existed” but calling them “harmless.” Here’s another perspective, a bit more generous, I hope:

Who began to unmask the lack of pathogenicity in the “viruses” coming out of the virus myth factory?

Duesberg. 1987. Here.

Before this paper, though others, including Dr. Roberto Giraldo, Michael Ellner of HEAL, and The Perth Group, maybe have been earlier on the time line—this paper, “Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality,” was the shot heard round the world. It was picked up by Charles Ortleb at the NY Native. LAURITSEN, here.

For more history:

Go here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

I always used to tell the late Liam Scheff (one of the great investigative journalists of all time) he was an outstanding comedian.

And Dave Rasnick always said only humor will set us free. Hard to say.

Another outtake from Tahi’s stunning interview with Luc Montagnier, a kind of confession booth, perhaps? Montagnier was always trying, in his way, to not be dragged into deep hell with the American HIV cabal. They never knew quite whether to blow him up or just coddle him. In the end, they gave him a Nobel prize that actually proved all HIV “denialists” were correct in what we always said.

If not, then perhaps they could explain why they didn't give it to Robert Gallo, the HIV theory’s banished father?

Look here:

”LM: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It's easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS. (3)”

—Luc Montagnier, 1997, Continuum Magazine

This is just a part of the vast, dark history of the war not even the virus rejectors of today seem interested in.

Why is that?