New Paper Announced - on HPV and its vaccine - see column
There are major things wrong in modern virology. No other modern science is in such trouble. This is my reluctant conclusion after nine years of investigation. I am both horrified and amazed by what I have discovered. Mistakes made in the 1980s are still being made today. The evidence is in the investigations below and in the library of peer-reviewed scientific research made available here so that you can judge my conclusions for yourselves.
This means tragically we have sometimes looked entirely in the wrong places for remedies.
Now out at last and available from Amazon
to Fear of the Invisible
by Janine Roberts
Virology – the misnamed Science
The word ‘virus’ comes from the Latin for a poisonous liquid, and before that from the Sanskrit for the same. The hunt for them started when, towards the end of the 19th century, it was suggested that invisible living particles much smaller than bacteria might cause the epidemic illnesses for which no bacterial cause could be found.
When the electron microscope found tiny particles in the blood serum of patients entering and leaving human cells, this was a Eureka Moment. The prediction was surely about to be proved true. These particles were assumed to be invading and hijacking our cells in order to reproduce. They were thus all condemned as poisons, as ‘viruses.’
As more of these were searched for and found in sick people, many illnesses became blamed on them. They became the invisible enemy, the nano-terrorist we must fear. We were instructed that one of our first duties for our newborn children is to vaccinate them against this dreaded foe. Thus was an ever-growing multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry created.
But, as I have travelled through the science that underlies this industry, I have gradually learnt to ask questions. I now realise that there is another way to see this story that fits all the data. I have learnt from biologists that our cells naturally produce viral-like particles without being invaded or infected, both when healthy and sick. Currently such particles are named by asking what illnesses they cause as if this is their raison d’être, their only importance, the sole reason for cells making them. They would be named far more positively and comprehensively by asking what cells produce them and for what purpose.
Scientists like Barbara McClintock, who won a Nobel Prize for finding that cells operate with intelligence and seek to repair themselves, have given us a very different understanding of the particles they make. We now know that our cells create multitudes of tiny transport particles (vesicles) to carry the proteins and genetic codes needed within and between cells. The ones that travel between cells, those our cells use to communicate with each other – are puzzlingly just like those that we have long blamed for illnesses.
It now seems that we may have broadly misconceived the virus; that most of them may be simply inert messages in envelopes carried from cell to cell. In the last ten years scientists have begun to rename them as ‘exosomes’, ‘particles that leave the body’ of the cell, thus removing the inference that they are all poisons.
Distinguishing the healthy particle from the pathogenic is now an enormous problem for the virologist, for it has been discovered that our cells make them all in the same way, in the very same place. It also seems we cannot stop this process without risking severely damaging our cells.
So, perhaps we need to halt the juggernaut of virology with its virus hunt, and look to see if there is another way of helping us keep healthy. We need to know how we can strengthen the malnourished cell, rather than use the many medicines that try to prevent it from making particles by interfering with its essential processes. We need to know if a poisoned cell may produce unhealthy messengers or viruses. We need to learn far more about cells – for only now are we starting to understand how they communicate and the very important role played in this by the particles we had totally demonised as viruses.
I spent over 4 years in the 1990s researching why the vaccines made to protect our children from viruses sometimes instead did them grievous damage. It then took me over 8 years to travel from accepting without question that a virus causes polio and another causes AIDS to discover that most people, including myself, have been vastly misled.
I now realize that science today is so specialized, that every new generation of scientists has had to trust that those who laid the foundations got things right, for they cannot repeat this earlier work except at great cost. If this trust ever proves to be misplaced, it is absolutely vital to correct this with all speed and courage.
Fear of the Invisible.
NOW AVAILABLE ON AMAZON - USA - AND UK
See our book's new website for many great articles - click on FEAR of the INVISIBLE
I have been horrified to learn from the highest scientific authorities that this trust has sometimes been very grievously misplaced. For example, high-level US governmental inquiries in the 1990s, guided by eminent scientists, explicitly reported the key foundation HIV research papers were riddled with grave errors and deceptively “fixed.” They documented these findings with great care – and I likewise do so here. But when the Republican Party gained control over the US House of Representatives at the end of 1994, it ended this most important investigation, buried its reports and left the scientific papers it found to be erroneous uncorrected. These same papers are thus still frequently used by unsuspecting scientists worldwide, who cite them as proof that HIV causes AIDS.
I present clear evidence here that these papers were fixed at the last moment before publication. I also reproduce the original documents so you can judge for yourselves.
When I dug back further, to the origins of virology and the great hunt for the poliovirus, I found the story was scandalously much the same. Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides. These scientists suggested remedies, reported curing polio – and were ignored. Instead parents were told to be scared of a yet undiscovered virus. Today thousands of children are still being identically paralysed in regions where such pesticides are heavily used – but all the World Health Organization (WHO) says is: ‘Don’t worry; we have nearly exterminated the dreaded poliovirus. We have checked. The paralysed children were not infected by it.’
As for childhood vaccinations, surely they have proved a great benefit?
I long thought so, but I have found the government scientists we entrust with our children’s lives have admitted, at official vaccine safety meetings reported here for the first time, that they cannot clean these vaccines; that they allowed their use despite knowing that they are scandalously polluted with numerous viruses, viral and genetic code fragments, possibly toxins, prions and oncogenes. The World Health Organization has also disclosed at these meetings that it has long known that the MMR vaccine is contaminated with avian leucosis virus. This is a bird virus linked to leukaemia, but the public have not been told about this. Why most children are not falling ill from this dangerous contamination is, it seems, because most are thankfully gifted by nature with very effective immune systems – and because these viruses are generally not as dangerous as these scientists believe.
As for the great flu’ epidemic of 1918, it is used today to spread fear of viruses. Yet, shortly after it occurred, an eminent Yale University professor reported that bacteria primarily caused it, and the flu viruses present were virtually harmless. As far as I can discover, his work remains unquestioned but not mentioned. Accordingly, I report it in this book. As for the recent scare over bird flu – any self-respecting bird would fall ill and create new viruses if subjected to the amounts of pollution now emitted in China. What we need to focus on is the pollution – not to waste a fortune on chasing genetic code fragments in birds healthily migrating thousands of miles.
What also of the many eminent scientists who have concluded publicly that the HIV theory of AIDS must be scientifically flawed because their research indicates that it has other causes and is curable? Is it right that their research is being suppressed, ridiculed and not funded – simply because they have not confirmed the establishment’s theory for this dreaded epidemic? At the end of this book I list some of their names and positions.
Among these dissenters are at least one Nobel Laureate and many senior professors at major universities. But it seems, no matter how important the academic chairs they hold, they are all mocked for so concluding and are scarcely ever interviewed. Instead they are scandalously called ‘Denialists,’ as if they had denied the Nazi Holocaust, on the basis that their work dissuades people from taking antiretroviral chemotherapy drugs - which logically cannot be lifesaving, despite all claims, if a retrovirus is not to be blamed.
I have to ask what are the consequences of this uncritical adherence to the theory of HIV? So far this theory has produced no cure and no vaccine despite the spending of some $200 billion on research. So, what if unacknowledged fraud is a major reason for this continual frustration? Is HIV science built upon flawed and fraudulent research?
As for Robert Gallo, the first scientist awarded the credit for discovering HIV; it seems he may have only escaped criminal prosecution for fraud in developing the HIV test on a technicality; because it was found by a State Attorney General that too much time had elapsed for his prosecution to be undertaken.
As for AIDS in Africa, journalists rarely check how AIDS is diagnosed in that continent. Most logically presume it is diagnosed the same as in the West. But, if they had checked, they would have learnt that World Health Organization has set very different criteria for an AIDS diagnosis in Africa – explicitly stating that AIDS can be diagnosed solely on the basis of symptoms common to other major diseases! Thus many diseases can be and are diagnosed as AIDS in Africa. I cite these remarkable diagnostic rules in full in this book so you can judge this for yourselves.
If the dissenting scientists were right, if we wrongly fear a sexually transmitted virus, this discovery would have an enormous impact around the world and especially in Africa. It would cause a vast uplifting of the spirits of its people, far greater than anything achieved by “Live AID” concerts. We all know how devastating it is for an individual to be told that they are HIV positive and will inevitably die of AIDS. What then does it do to the morale of the people of a continent to be told that they are not only desperately poor but incurably blighted – due to sex?
We have been taught to greatly fear viruses – and yet scientists have long known that these are fundamental parts of life, made by the millions by all healthy cells. I hope this book will help by combating this fear, this damning of the invisible because we do not understand it. Without this fear, hopefully the focus in medical research will shift to the environmental toxins that really do put us, and our world, gravely at risk.
As for myself, my work as an investigative journalist previously was on relatively safer subjects for one’s reputation in the liberal press, such as arms for Iran, Aboriginal land rights, and blood diamonds. I do not expect such a relatively easy ride this time, given the emotion connected to this issue. Indeed, attempts have already been made to prevent this work appearing, by the same academics who have tried to prevent publicity for the works of the ‘dissident’ scientists. I suppose I should be honoured to be seen so early as a danger by them, even before this book appeared! You can read here verbatim their attacks on my work and judge their validity for yourselves.
But the truth needs to be out.
I hope my account will help to lift the fear with which these natural and fascinating tiny particles have been enshrouded for far too long. They are the products of our cells – and they helped make us.
When I began some twelve years ago my journey into medical research, it took me into the grim world of the virus hunters – but then, utterly unexpectedly, it led to me being utterly enthralled by the marvels of the miniscule world of the cell and of its messenger particles or viruses, a world that may well extend across galaxies. I invite you to join me on this journey to meet with our oldest, smallest ancestors, ones whom we are only just now starting to know.
THE DANGEROUS IMPURITIES OF VACCINES.
FROM CHAPTER 7 OF "FEAR OF THE INVISIBLE"
THIS chapter cites is previously unpublished official transcripts of governmental scientific meetings between UK and USA scientists on vaccine safety. No journalists were present - so they spoke much more frankly... of seemingly grave dangers that have not been made public..
They started with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR). One of the first speakers on it was Dr Arifa Khan from the top American government health and safety organization, the Food and Drugs Agency (FDA), and what she had to report was very troubling.
She commenced: ‘Today I would like to present an update on the reverse transcriptase [RT] activity that is present in chicken cell derived vaccines.’ My attention was immediately grabbed. I knew that the mumps and measles components of the MMR vaccine are grown in fertilised chicken eggs, as are also the Flu and Yellow Fever vaccines. The rubella virus for MMR is produced differently - in artificially grown cells taken originally from an aborted human foetus.
Dr, Khan explained she was reporting the result of a just concluded and little-known two-year investigation into the safety of MMR headed by the World Health Organisation. She explained that this study was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT. an enzyme linked to retroviruses as well as cells. In the back corridors of virology this had immediately caused alarm as some retroviruses were thought to cause cancers – as well as AIDS – for HIV is said to be a retrovirus. WHO had then quietly organised MMR safety studies at various laboratories to see ‘whether this RT activity was associated with a retroviral particle, and even more importantly, whether this retrovirus particle could infect and replicate in human cells.’
What they then discovered confirmed their worse fears. Dr Khan continued: ‘The RT activity is found to be associated with retroviral particles of two distinct avian endogenous retroviral families designated as EAV and ALV.’ Now ALV stands for Avian Leukosis Virus. It is associated with a cancer found in wild birds, so definitely was not wanted in the vaccines. Khan added that they had found another possible danger; ‘There was a theoretical possibility that the virus could … infect the [human] cell’ thus integrating its genetic code ‘into the human DNA’ and cause cancer. The only reassurance she could give was that her team had watched vaccine cultures for a full ‘48 hours’, and, in that time period, no merger of viral and human DNA had been observed. I thought this far too short a period to guarantee safety – but read on.
Dr Khan then warned; ‘there is a possibility that there could also be potentialpseudotypes (between) … the measles vaccine virus and the retroviral sequences’ – meaning there was a risk that bird viruses might combine with the measles virus in the vaccine to create new dangerous mutant viruses, They had not seen it happen, but it could happen.
She acknowledged much longer term studies were needed than 48 hours, but acknowledged that such studies of measles vaccine cultures were very difficult: ‘because the measles vaccine virus itself lyses [kills] the culture in about three to four days.’ This had prevented them from looking to see what might be the consequences from longer-term contamination in the vaccinated.
So far, she added, they had only managed to analyse a small part of the retrovirus contamination in the vaccines. ‘Our ongoing studies are directed towards doing similar analysis’ of other retroviral genetic codes found in the vaccine preparations.’ It seemed they had found only part of these virus’s genetic codes. And she added that she had learnt, ‘about 20 years ago similar RT activity was reported’ in the vaccine. Apparently at that time nothing had been done about it, and the public were not told. She concluded by explaining what the World Health Organisation (WHO) had decided to do about this chicken leucosis virus (ALV) contamination. It would take the risk of quietly allowing MMR vaccine production to continue in retrovirus contaminated eggs, because; ‘You cannot get ALV free flocks in places where you are making yellow fever vaccine.’
Dr Andrew Lewis, head of the DNA Virus Laboratory in the Division of Viral Products, then warned. ‘All the egg-based vaccines are contaminated’ including ‘influenza, yellow fever and smallpox vaccines, as well as the vaccine for horses against encephalomyelitis virus’ for ‘these fertilised chicken eggs were susceptible to a wide variety of viruses.’ .....
The latest information I could find about the retroviral contamination of the MMR vaccine is in a 2001 scientific paper. This reported some 100 MMR recipients were tested to see if they possessed antibodies against two types of retroviruses identified by Dr Khan and others. When the selected antibody was not found, this interpreted as meaning that these children had not been infected. But the authors went on to say: ‘The finding of RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested suggests that this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles‘. (4,5,7,14). They then concluded: ‘Despite these reassuring data, the presence of avian retroviral particles in chick embryo fibroblast-derived vaccines [like MMR] raises questions about the suitability of primary chicken cell substrates for vaccine production.’ They thus recommended considering stopping production in fertilized eggs, and growing the vaccine viruses instead on ‘RT-negative cells from different species, such as on immortalized [cancerous] or diploid [laboratory grown] mammalian cells.’ .....
All the largest public health institutions in the Western World were at this workshop, including the World Health Organisation whose representative co-chaired it. The UK government’s vaccine safety organisations had a top-level representative in Dr Philip Minor. No press apparently were present – but the importance of the meeting meant that it was taped to ensure an accurate record.
Dr Bill Egan, the Acting Director of the Office of Vaccines at the Center for Biologics opened the meeting thus.‘I think we need to remind ourselves that viruses can propagate only in live cells, and this of course holds true for whole viral vaccines… They can only be produced in cells [substrates]… We have only to think back to the finding of SV40 in poliovirus vaccines to realize the extent of the risk that any cell substrate may pose, and there is still great need for concern… we have been given the task of identifying these concerns…’
The scientists present then told of viral and DNA genetic code fragments, as well as proteins,that contaminate the vaccines. They mentioned particularly their worry that among these might be dangerous prions or oncogenes.
Other vaccines had been found contaminated with monkey viruses. Dr Andrew Lewis of the FDA reported: ‘humans were immunized with adenovirus vaccines that contained adenovirus-SV40 hybrid viruses.’ In other words, a brand-new monkey-human mutant virus had been created in the vaccine. Dr. Ben Berkhout exclaimed at hearing this: ‘That's the one I would like to focus on today, Is [there a danger of] the potential reversion of an attenuated vaccine strain to a virus variant that can replicate fast and can potentially cause AIDS?’
This was a startling question. Could the viruses in our most common childhood vaccines be so affected by contaminating DNA that the vaccines would give our children AIDS? Were such mutation events rare? Apparently they were not. Another doctor stated. ‘Recombination among a variety of viruses and cells co-infected in tissue culture is not uncommon. This is an issue that certainly will need further consideration.’ In other words, vaccine incubators cause virus mutation. The next speaker dealt with the ‘foreign cellular DNA’ they had found to contaminate our childhood vaccines. Dr Andrew Lewis of the CDER and FDA worried that this might well include ‘viral oncogenes’ – in other words, it might cause cancer.
but none of this was to be made public, and until now it has remained secret...!
Virus Clearance Strategies for Biopharmaceutical Safety http://www.pall.com/applicat/bio_pharm/pdf/Bp5560.pdf.
This was suggested first by Dr Stefan Lanka.
Shifiting Paradigms:- DIRT, VIRUSES, BACTERIA and the healthy Infant's immune system.
Virology was created by scientists who presumed all genetic-code carrying small particles were dangerous, thus naming them as viruses, meaning in Latin 'poisons'. For disease after disease they looked solely for viral causes, ignoring environmental. This attitude was passed onto the public - who did all they could to kill the viruses in their homes. But some scientists have since revealed a very different picture - revealing that we cannot live healthy lifes without viruses and bacteria, most do not harm us - and killing them can make us ill. - click here for our Dirt is Good for You articles..
The Wonder of Retroviruses - our cells' essential cargo ships.
Retroviruses were first researched mainly by virologists who suspected they were the cause of cancer. One reason was that the DNA changed in the cells they entered. But from the early 1980s an entirely different view of them emerged in biology. We now know healthy cells in animals, in bacteria, in plants and in us make their own retroviruses to carry snips of cellular genetic code from one cell to another to reshape our DNA - a process that has played a major role in our evolution.click VIRUS BLOG -and Working Hypothesis
So why is HIV so different?
HIV- the author's journey through the key research into HIV, the HIV Test and HAART. Click for more information on major coming article HIV blog
`AIDS - the many causes - click To summary of second part.
The above are pre-print summaries of two major new articles on HIV/AIDS now with their publisher and due out in print later this year. Readers are warmly invited to send in comments. The science in them has been carefully checked by many eminent scientists. Now it is time for you to have your say.