On August 6th David Crowe started a thread at the ReThinking AIDS facebook page to survey his readers. Mr. Crowe was on a fishing expedition to find out how much money people would pay to have their blood scanned by an Electron Microscope:
Serious question. If you could get a series of electron microscope photos of your blood, with appropriate controls, probably showing you had no virus in your blood, would you pay $1000 plus or minus $500 for the set plus a report? Reply here or privately.
The question by itself is interesting for several reasons:
First, I wonder why Crowe is being so cagey and not coming right out and telling his readers this is for the new Baker/Rasnick joint, Viral Forensics. And why is Crowe limiting his discussion to HIV when Viral Forensics claims to be able to find ANY and ALL virus in blood.
The second thing that comes to mind is why are Baker and Rasnick using Crowe to find out how much to charge for their service? I would think that before they launched their slick website they would have a fully completed and comprehensive business plan. They should have performed their due diligence and should know precisely what their goods and services are worth in the marketplace. The truth is, what they are selling is just another one of Baker’s grifts or scams. Their service is completely useless in the marketplace. I will write more about that later.
Lastly, and most tellingly, Crowe admits this service is rubbish. He writes: “…probably showing you had no virus in your blood…” Those 9 words prove there is no objectivity in the tests performed at Viral Forensics. Well, those words and the “white paper” found on their website as well as every other tab at the Viral Forensics website, but I will discuss all this in detail in the next week or so.
The responses by the readers of RA are the most interesting. (I will copy/paste the full thread at the bottom.) Most of them are dead set against any testing, EM or otherwise, because for so many years they have been fed the notion that HIV is not real because it has never been properly isolated or purified. And because of this lack of proper isolation, there is no test adequate. And this falsity has been fed to them for 30 years by the very people who are now telling them: “Forget all that; we’ve changed our minds; follow us off this new cliff, but first give us $1,500! I swear this is for real! This is the Gold Standard!”
But David Crowe, being the Persistent Pimp that he is, digs in and tries to sway the minions:
David Crowe This has been used in court before and is compelling evidence that a high viral load does not mean a lot of virus. I’d like people to think about this seriously. And, for people who think that finding nothing means nothing, it is possible to have a control sample using laboratory particles of the right size. If those can be detected it proves that HIV would also be detected if present.David Crowe If there is a control sample showing particles, and a real sample not showing particles, why would you need multiple samples taken over a period of time?David Crowe Peter Capainolo, the experience so far is that particles of the HIV size and shape cannot be detected in fresh blood, but can be detected when blood is spiked with particles of the expected size and shape, meaning that the techniques are not missing them.David Crowe Richard Jannaccio the spiked particles are spiked in particles per unit volume. And viral load is also an estimate of particles per ml.David Crowe Ted Stearn, proving that the particles are HIV is not important … if no such particles are found. If particles were found (which we don’t believe is ever the case in fresh blood, as opposed to cell culture) then the question is … what are they?What is truly hilarious to me is seeing just how wildly off topic the comments became. They were discussing anal sex and lubes versus vaginal sex; Darwin and evolution; the words pee-pee, poo-poo and vomit are included…why? I can’t answer that; and of course, Cal Crilly Silly Willy showed up to include the “fact” that no one knows what is in human blood. And all the while our Persistent Pimp was futilely trying to keep the discussion on topic.
BTW, only one person said they would pay for this “service”.
As I wrote above, I will be writing a comprehensive post about why Viral Forensics is a scam and a fraud in the next week or so. But for now, enjoy the entertaining thread on the subject courtesy of ReThinking AIDS facebook.
Serious question. If you could get a series of electron microscope photos of your blood, with appropriate controls, probably showing you had no virus in your blood, would you pay $1000 plus or minus $500 for the set plus a report? Reply here or privately.
-
-
Richard Jannaccio I wouldn’t pay more than zero cents because such electron micrographs alone would conclusively prove zero. -
David Etheredge I agree that it would prove nothing except that the virus was not present in that sample. It is highly likely, considering the difficulty that they have in producing electron micrographs of the virus. that it would even show up in 1 out of 1000 attempts. A better test would be to take the blood and apply it to a culture of CD-4 cells and see if they become infected. -
-
-
Nikki Keersemaker yes!! It would be worth it to have a definitive result…even to check for a full spectrum of pathogens.I also wish the SNP chip DNA workup would become affordable to all…already widely used to check Equines why not humans? -
-
Eduardo Mateo Interesting… How would it help those who already don’t believe in the virus? More peace of mind? Legally? Would it override the other “tests”? -
George C. O’Connor I would first have to be shown the indisputable dynamics by which this ever-mutating virus caused a pathological deficiency in my “immune system”. No one knows how many biologically inactive viruses have “infected” their CD4 cells with no ill effects.Once it was finally demonstrated how “HIV infection = CD4 rapid depletion” or “future rapid CD4 depletion” I would happily talk high prices to determine its presence.*However*, although this may seem counterintuitive to many if not most, I would not then, if found to be indisputably “infected with a ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus'” decide upon which anti-retroviral combination would best suit me. That’s inviting disaster. A continuum of toxic chemicals? That’s not even done with anti-neoplastic chemotherapy with cancer! It’s not done with antibiotics used for a multiplicity of bacterial infections!
But today we’re so goddamn stupid, crazy and, quite likely true for some, murderous that little trouble is found with “PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis”) and that little trouble that is voiced is from those whose concern is that “safe sex” might be abandonned because of “overconfidence” with it and a rise in the “rate of infection with ‘HIV’ would be the result.
-
Peter Capainolo Use sera from hundreds of critters across taxa. I hypothesize that particles would be found that could be deemed “HIV”. -
David Crowe This has been used in court before and is compelling evidence that a high viral load does not mean a lot of virus. I’d like people to think about this seriously. And, for people who think that finding nothing means nothing, it is possible to have a control sample using laboratory particles of the right size. If those can be detected it proves that HIV would also be detected if present.
-
Beldeu Singh David, they use PCR for measuring viral loads but the developer of this technology has clarified that it cannot be used to quantify viral loads. And, yes, researchers with integrity in science use the terminology HIV virus particles. -
Jim Clayson If I was diagnosed hiv+ and you took out the ‘probably’ disclaimer, yes… definitely. I might even agree, with the disclaimer… depends on my finances at the time. -
-
Yvonne Bonde I think it takes many samples taken at different times over years to make a point. I don’t have 15k -
David Crowe If there is a control sample showing particles, and a real sample not showing particles, why would you need multiple samples taken over a period of time?
-
Les Bell David, I would pay it, however the UK Courts refuse to acknowledge the validity of E.M. test results. -
Peter Capainolo I mean simply that particles are present in the blood of all vertebrates at various levels and at various times. They are not “HIV” but some are likely close enough in their morphology to the “established” identification of “the probable cause of AIDS”. I suggest that this might skew results.
-
-
-
Jesus Alvarez Peter Capainolo, all vertebrates have endogenous retroviruses, but none of them are very similar to the lentiviruses. In EM, the lentiviruses have a cone shaped core in the mature particles. Immature lentiviral particles look like all other retroviruses. Serology, or sequencing the genomes (or a part of them) in the particles is the way to determine exactly what they are. -
David Crowe Peter Capainolo, the experience so far is that particles of the HIV size and shape cannot be detected in fresh blood, but can be detected when blood is spiked with particles of the expected size and shape, meaning that the techniques are not missing them.
-
David Crowe Les Bell, I’d also be very interested in info on the UK courts. Is this an absolute prohibition? One case? The background is very important.
-
Richard Jannaccio David Crowe, to equalize the probability of finding the alleged HIV, you would have to have the same concentration of particles in the control as the “HIV”– and how would you measure the concentration of a virus that you can’t even find to verify its existence? The particles should also have properties that convey similar visibility under the EM. Second, asGeorge C. O’Connor stated, you’d have to show that this “HIV” lived up to its name and really does cause Human Immunodeficiency. Third, all of the dynamics would be different if HIV was shown to be endogenous and/or non-transmissible. So you’d also have to prove that the HIV was exogenous and transmissible.I think the price tag just soared.
-
Eduardo Mateo Vitamin C “can suppress the symptoms of the disease and can markedly reduce the tendency for secondary infections”. What the hell is the “disease”? AIDS? Then what are the secondary infections? Crazy. AIDS is not a disease. “HIV infection” is not a disease either. WTF. There seems to be an obsession out there with disease and cures. The healthiest people I have known never took anything at all.
-
David Crowe Richard Jannaccio the spiked particles are spiked in particles per unit volume. And viral load is also an estimate of particles per ml.
-
George C. O’Connor Constantine Makaveli Maniatis, Given your description of the results of infection with “HIV” and such a low, if not incidental frequency of transmission the designation, “Human Immunodeficiency Virus” is entirely unwarranted and for it to be thought the pivotal causal in a “worldwide epidemic (“pandemic?”) of immuno-compromise” resulting in such an extraordinarily wide and diverse number of diseases makes it more absurd.It’s as if one said, “immunodeficiency from a variety of causes is a necessary condition for HIV to cause this pathological state known as “Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, the acronym for which is ‘A.I.D.S.’.”
Jesus Alvarez, I have no idea what you are trying to say about the morphology of lentiviruses especially since all retroviruses are lentiviruses (slow viruses — Latin, “lentis” for “slow” + “virus”). It just lacks all definition. -
Richard Jannaccio Viral load is not an estimate of particles in blood, which is what the original post says will be examined by EM.
-
Peter Capainolo 1.”Immature lentiviral particles look like all other retroviruses” seems like a major problem to me. 2. I have my doubts about sequencing genomes. Lots of manipulation involved with primers etc.
-
Eduardo Mateo I wonder why is insertive penile vaginal intercourse 4 and insertive anal is 11??? Must be because asses are tighter? haha.. Throwing semen? I never heard of that sexual practice.
-
-
Eduardo Mateo They sure have come a long way, from a mere guess that the “virus”was sexually transmitted to such an exact level of transmission by various sexual procedures. Ha! I wonder when for the first time it was “proved” that it was sexually transmitted, but why do they not call it an STI?
-
Eduardo Mateo Or the sexual transmission aspect of it is like Karri Mullis looking for the paper that proves that HIV causes AIDS…. right? Nobody wants that credit on their shoulders. It’s all such a mystery…. everybody knows everything but nobody knows who proved that.. like a rumor or a gossip gone viral…
-
-
-
Peter Capainolo Yes, everyone became a fucking expert overnight. High School guidance counselors, coaches etc. Just change the sign on the door.
-
-
Eduardo Mateo So.. Constantine Makaveli Maniatis.. You do believe in all this science that many of us call garbage ?
-
Peter Capainolo Of course Eduardo Mateo. Science must have determined that insertive and receptive are the same thing.
-
Eduardo Mateo So if I penetrate the same woman anally I have four timesmore chances to get the virus because it only has one layer? What about all the fluids from the vagina? I suppose it is a lot easier to accept and find explanations for everything we are told as opposed to questioning anything.
-
Eduardo Mateo Or perhaps the lubricating fluids in the vagina can’t carry the virus. Just like saliva, yet there’s the oral swab tests. We’re just supposed to believe all the nonsense they throw our way ! Most likely these statistics from the CDC are based on answers to surveys lol. Science.
-
-
George C. O’Connor Constantine Makaveli Maniatis, The unanswered question remains: How did a *biologically inactive* retrovirus whose existence remains to be established, abruptly begin to infect males anally and in such impossibly large titres? We only know “it” by the antibody test which is so unreliable it can’t be trusted to measure anything.
-
Peter Capainolo How about tears, pee pee and poo poo itself? Don’t forget sweat. What about pre-ejaculate? Is vomit involved? Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
-
Peter Capainolo The hypothesis of Evolution answers all of that George C. O’Connorr. Chance mutation and natural selection of course. And a lot of mathematical improbability. It just “is”.
-
-
-
Les Bell Yvonne Bonde and David Crowe the NHS refuse to carry out EM tests so any “specialist Consultant” would testify that the use of such would be futile for use as evidence of presence/absence. All part of the Orthodox view which will also be carried by the Judge – they are unlikely to do anything but take a fellow professional at their word. Sadly. To date, I don’t believe anybody has challenged any of the flaws in the testing procedure/test kit disclaimers in a UK Court. All cases to date have been lost by the prosecution on a legal technicality only. OMSJ were paused to fight in a UK Court on behalf of a chap called Henry using all of their evidence & knowledge but unfortunately he died due to the stress of it all.
-
Ted Stearn I wonder how anyone would or would not know that the particles are HIV. I guess I don’t know enough about it. I thought that was never established, visually. -
George C. O’Connor It never was, Ted. But hell knows what is used in “HIV studies” for specific isolates every time we hear of “a leap in progress” fed to the media to justify “further studies in this area are promising for possible newer, more effective drugs and possible vaccines in the fight to control or even cure ‘HIV/AIDS’!” (Always note the *spelling*, “HIV/AIDS”, it was intended to be *spelled* [?] that way for conceptual confusion.)Need I really point out why “HIV/AIDS news” is put before the public as if “HIV” could be retrieved and counted as though it were a little bug you could see under a 1600x, $500, $600 student-hobbyist microscope?
-
David Crowe Ted Stearn, proving that the particles are HIV is not important … if no such particles are found. If particles were found (which we don’t believe is ever the case in fresh blood, as opposed to cell culture) then the question is … what are they?
-
Cal Crilly fact is they don’t know what’s in our blood yet?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC154583/NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV -
Les Bell Following on from this post, I have just formally requested an Electron Microscope test by the UK NHS. (5th request now) Previous requests were refused by the clinic giving the reason “We just never have a need for it but as you have an undetectable viral load, it would be pointless anyway” (I was on meds then but not now) Reading between the lines that tells me they know it would read negative. Anyway, I have resent the demand to the NHS’ Solicitor as all communication from me now is answered by their lawyers. On a separate note, the NHS & their lawyers were unable to find or supply me with a test kit disclaimer when I formally requested it – even keeping me waiting 9 months to then say “we don’t have any”. The bastards know exactly what we know!
HIV Innocence Group Truth 
Leave a Reply