All Episodes
March 17, 2022 - David Icke
09:13
Never broadcast Channel 4 News report from 1998 challenges existence of HIV 'virus'
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The challenge to the existence of HIV was made public on the first day of the 1998 Geneva
World AIDS Conference.
In the vast session of three, a team of international scientists presented their conclusions.
HIV has never been identified and there's no proof that such a virus exists.
According to the very well accepted method for retroviral isolation, HIV has never been isolated.
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 failed.
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.
If, however, as these scientists maintain, AIDS is not an infectious, sexually transmitted disease, then AIDS research has been wrongly directed for 15 years.
Isolation is necessary to identify any virus.
At the Pasteur Institute in Paris, guidelines were arrived at for the isolation of retroviruses, which HIV is said to be.
Cell culture products must be spun and same-shaped particles banded at a precise density called purifying.
This must be confirmed with an electron microscope image.
In Perth, Western 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.
Its assumption has been postulated only by indirect means.
Indirect means like testing for antibody reactions do not satisfy Professor Etienne de Havon, 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.
And 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.
And, to my greatest dismay, these pictures were showing practically nothing else but cell debris.
This magazine offers support and information for HIV diagnosed people and publishes the work of scientists critical of the virus AIDS theory.
In October 1997, Continuum published an interview with Professor Luc Montagnier 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.
I repeat, we did not purify.
It was startling that Professor Montagnier 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, despite what he termed a Roman effort.
So, who should be surprised that when the same thing was attempted by expert laboratories in Germany and the United States, who published their results in the journal Virology, what they found was proteins and cellular debris.
If there is such a thing as an AIDS-causing retrovirus, then its unique body part, 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.
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, none 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 bind with a set of test kit proteins, proteins still marketed as belonging only to HIV. If it reacts, the color density changes.
These changes are a matter of degree, high or low, 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.
The blood samples were 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.
How did he feel about these conflicting results?
Confused in a way.
Obviously glad that now, having received two sets of negative results, I'm obviously fairly confident that I'm HIV negative now.
But confused as to why I would receive a positive result in the first place from the experiment that we did.
And how many other false positive results are there floating around that people don't know about?
It seems Peter had sufficient concentration of antibodies to turn some of the tests positive.
But does this mean he has a deadly virus?
There are already 62 known conditions which can lead to a positive result on an HIV test.
These include flu and flu vaccines, arthritis, hepatitis B vaccine, lupus, candidiasis, malaria, TB and leprosy.
What is called AIDS is made up of 29 diseases, all of which existed long before the AIDS era.
These diseases involve fungal, mycobacterial and other infection producing antibodies which could react with the so-called HIV protein, says Dr.
Philip Mortimer, head 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.
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.
Most people who test positive remain well.
Indeed, antibodies are usually a sign of protection against illness.
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.
When the body is at risk, a process called oxidative stress can escalate.
Cells struggle for energy and the immune system can be seriously weakened.
People who suffer from the illnesses grouped as AIDS 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.
There is a most urgent need to redirect research funding Funds should go to laboratories working on other ideas totally independent from HIV and no longer restricted to laboratories working on a hypothesis which has never been proven.
I suppose an analysis of what's going on shows the massive power of vested interest, but the change is happening.
The change has got to happen.
Export Selection