COVID-19 vaccine(s) makes people test positive on an HIV test

[haidut]

There's no indication that it triggered a positive HIV test, it says they tested positive for antibodies against the gp41 protein from HIV, the most likely explanation being because that's what they were injected with:

"The Molecular Clamp is a trimerization motif of 80aa in length (~9.2 kDa) derived from N- and C-terminal heptad repeat (HR) regions of HIV-1 gp41 which self-assemble into a stable six-helical bundle structure that is critical for driving membrane fusion and cell entry of HIV-1 (7) ( Figure 1 )." (the NCBI article)

"The Phase 1 data also showed the generation of antibodies directed towards fragments of a protein (gp41), which is a component used to stablise the vaccine". (the UQ link)

One antibody is not sufficient for a positive HIV test:

HIV antigen/antibody

www.labtestsonline.org.au

"Several HIV antigens are included in the test. The test is interpreted as positive if antibody to at least two of three antigens is detected (p24, gp41 or gp120/160). When no bands are found the test is negative. When some bands appear but do not meet the criteria for a positive result the result is considered indeterminate."

Where is the suggestion that they expect or want it to be accepted by the public? They cancelled the vaccine because of this and the project this was part of has been sent back to the drawing board to look for something else to use. As for the tests, has there previously been widespread finding of HIV antibodies in people who had never been infected with HIV? If not then how would it not be a new situation if a large number of people were given this vaccine and developed an (1) HIV antibody?

Pretty funny that the evil medical establishment says they're fine and healthy while you insist they now have a chronic HIV infection. Next you'll be saying they have to be put on HIV medications just to keep up with some protocol or other.

When this HIV-containing vaccine requires changes in the standard HIV diagnostic protocols in order to be rolled out, to me it is pretty clear why and where this is headed. Here is that quote again.
"...With advice from experts, CSL and UQ have worked through the implications that this issue presents to rolling out the vaccine into broad populations. It is generally agreed that significant changes would need to be made to well-established HIV testing procedures in the healthcare setting to accommodate rollout of this vaccine. Therefore, CSL and the Australian Government have agreed vaccine development will not proceed to Phase 2/3 trials."

I don't care what the medical "experts" said in regards to those people. There is a standard protocol for follow-up and confirming an HIV infection after testing positive once, and that protocol was not followed. So, to claim that those people are fine is unfounded.

 

[Rick K]

How can it contain HIV "fragments" when HIV exists just as much as Covid, meaning it doesn't.
The only thing that exists is AIDS, a host of symptoms that develop in someone snorting too much poppers, injecting heroin, or just having a very poor lifestyle, and may exhibit conditions such as Kaposi syndrom as a result.

The other thing that exists are respiratory symptoms. Sure. But they also develop because of a poor lifestyle, not because of "covid".

Neither HIV nor covid were proven to exist under a microscope.

Amen, brother. Read: Virus Mania and you'll have a complete understanding of this and other plandemics.

 

[Giraffe]

Wow, a germ theory denier! I still find it absolutely stunning that germ theory deniers (and flat earthers, for that matter) can exist now with all humankind's information so readily available. And if by chance you aren't a germ theory denier and just regurgitated this bit of stupidity that you saw on Facebook or greenmedinfo or Infowars or whatever your idiotic choice of idiotic information is without bothering to learn anything about it whatsoever, then the only other possibility for you making this stupid argument is that you 1) don't have a ******* clue what Koch's postulates are,

Does it give you some sort of satisfaction to be verbally abusive over the internet?

 

[LLight]

Three years after they were published, Koch himself admitted that the first postulate isn't necessary when he discovered the existence of asymptomatic carriers of typhoid fever. This idea has also been completely abandoned by modern medicine because there are many other diseases (HIV, polio, colds, flu, etc) which have asymptomatic carriers. So that should throw this idea right out the window.

It's convenient to ignore a paradox to your own theory.

The existence of complete asymptomatics is a proof that microbes do not fully cause diseases.

 

[TheBeard]

It's convenient to ignore a paradox to your own theory.

The existence of complete asymptomatics is a proof that microbes do not fully cause diseases.

More than one.

The third step has never been proven either. Inoculation of a germ is not causing any disease.
Germs appear as a consequence of a disease, not a cause.

Same for cancer cells. Think injecting cancer cells to a healthy patient will magically make him cancerous?
Think again.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Inoculation of a germ is not causing any disease.
Germs appear as a consequence of a disease, not a cause.

This is reductionist thinking and false.

There are germs that are inherently pathogenic and dangerous. It’s true that the host „environment“ crucially determines how severe a the consequences are of a pathogen entering a host.

Smaller quantities of pathogens going against a functional immunity? No illness.
(Still: effects. Changing the environment. Marginally maybe, but effects. Homeostasis is altered forever)

Then there are germs that for complex evolution reasons and development on both the germ and host side are non-pathogenic, maybe even beneficial. Still, in a strict homeostatic sense. Including the homeostasis already „priced in“ in said evolution.

Quantity, inherent (evolutionary) pathogenicity is the germs and the situation of the host immunity at the moment of intruding ultimately decides the outcome. That only the host situation „decides“ if a germ causes illness, or as you even claim, germs only „appear“ (whatever that means) as a consequence is wrong. Subcomplex and reductionist and therefore easily and repeatedly falsified.

What is correct is that pathogenic germs are not inherently evil or some such bull.
But they are certainly not inherently primed to symbiotic or neutral coexistence.

Life is struggle and either exploitation or cooperation. A germ that is only exploiting the host when its „health“ is compromised is inherently pathogenic.

 

[retroactive]

@haidut Is there any connection to Luc Montagnier's claim that even Sars-Cov-2 contains elements of the HIV sequence?

 

[achillea]

Live on camera-nurse dies after getting the jab (stab). God Rest Her Soul! Brighteon

 

[Perry Staltic]

Live on camera-nurse dies after getting the jab (stab). God Rest Her Soul! Brighteon

Best to wait and see.

Claims that Tennessee nurse died after vaccine are baseless

CLAIM: Tiffany Dover, a nurse manager in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who fainted after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on Thursday, is now dead...

apnews.com

 

[Giraffe]

Live on camera-nurse dies after getting the jab (stab). God Rest Her Soul! Brighteon

She has given an interview after she had fainted. It's linked on that website, too.

 

[haidut]

@haidut Is there any connection to Luc Montagnier's claim that even Sars-Cov-2 contains elements of the HIV sequence?

Montagnier claims that SARS-CoV-2 is lab-made and deliberately engineered as a carrier/shuttle for a possible HIV vaccine. There was an interview with him back in April 2020 where he was asked if he thinks SARS-CoV-2 can cause HIV/AIDS and he said "not the virus itself, but definitely a possibility if a vaccine is made that targets that HIV portion". I don't know if the "gp41" portion in the Australian vaccine is the same as the one the virus contains, but considering Montagnier's position I would err on the side of caution.

 

[Drareg]

Not a hope I’m touching any of these, by all accounts so far, it’s easy to opt out if you have an "underlying" condition.

There are plenty of woke pop culture types more than willing to roll up their sleeves, the cult is strong, it’s going to be interesting to see the reaction of said wokists when they see doctors and nurses pushing back against mandatory poorly tested vaccines.

The whole covid 19 saga has create a pathological cult, 2020 is the year of multiple identity cults taking root, we’ve never had so many differing cults, it’s a mass pathology, remember a few years ago Peat use to say the world is gradually becoming more psychopathological, he would mention the environment and abuse of SSRI’s, I estimate a large majority who support woke politics are using antipsychotics of some kind, it’s perfectly "normal" behavior in contemporary times, I think we forget that on here sometimes.

 

[Lollipop2]

Live on camera-nurse dies after getting the jab (stab). God Rest Her Soul! Brighteon

How horrible. Her poor family.

 

[lvysaur]

various mRNA vaccines developed for COVID-19 was that most of them contain a protein fragment from HIV

Didn't COV2 itself contain DNA from HIV? Or was that debunked?

 

[b555]

@haidut Holy guacamole. Too many errors. Ain’t nobody got time for that, but among them: the Australian vaccine was a traditional protein vaccine, not mRNA. It created a false positive HIV test, because the test detects HIV antibodies, not actual virus. There is an absolute zero chance of that vaccine producing an HIV infection. In a questionable metaphor, if HIV is Brad Pitt and I’m the Australian vaccine, we have the same scarf. That is where the similarities end. Having Brad Pitt’s scarf does not make me Brad Pitt. If you’re exposed to Brad Pitt, you’re probably going to have his babies (replicate virus). If you’re exposed to me, no one is having any babies, particularly little Brad Pitt babies as that would be impossible. That said, someone exposed to me will be exposed to Brad Pitt’s scarf and may develop antibodies to said scarf. Therefore, if that person is tested for antibodies to Brad Pitt, they would test positive despite never having been actually exposed to Brad Pitt, only me and his scarf. This would make the Brad Pitt antibody test useless particularly if everyone were exposed to me.

 

[Peater]

Not a hope I’m touching any of these, by all accounts so far, it’s easy to opt out if you have an "underlying" condition.

There are plenty of woke pop culture types more than willing to roll up their sleeves, the cult is strong, it’s going to be interesting to see the reaction of said wokists when they see doctors and nurses pushing back against mandatory poorly tested vaccines.

The whole covid 19 saga has create a pathological cult, 2020 is the year of multiple identity cults taking root, we’ve never had so many differing cults, it’s a mass pathology, remember a few years ago Peat use to say the world is gradually becoming more psychopathological, he would mention the environment and abuse of SSRI’s, I estimate a large majority who support woke politics are using antipsychotics of some kind, it’s perfectly "normal" behavior in contemporary times, I think we forget that on here sometimes.

Very well said and very perceptive

 

[achillea]

She has given an interview after she had fainted. It's linked on that website, too.

Thank you for the link. When she was fainting she looked as if it was something new not a normal experience, as she alluded to, Also the video with her colleagues could have been taken any time, In this age of deceit it is best to question everything

 

[haidut]

@haidut Holy guacamole. Too many errors. Ain’t nobody got time for that, but among them: the Australian vaccine was a traditional protein vaccine, not mRNA. It created a false positive HIV test, because the test detects HIV antibodies, not actual virus. There is an absolute zero chance of that vaccine producing an HIV infection. In a questionable metaphor, if HIV is Brad Pitt and I’m the Australian vaccine, we have the same scarf. That is where the similarities end. Having Brad Pitt’s scarf does not make me Brad Pitt. If you’re exposed to Brad Pitt, you’re probably going to have his babies (replicate virus). If you’re exposed to me, no one is having any babies, particularly little Brad Pitt babies as that would be impossible. That said, someone exposed to me will be exposed to Brad Pitt’s scarf and may develop antibodies to said scarf. Therefore, if that person is tested for antibodies to Brad Pitt, they would test positive despite never having been actually exposed to Brad Pitt, only me and his scarf. This would make the Brad Pitt antibody test useless particularly if everyone were exposed to me.

I already responded to a similar critique by user "hei". First of all, we don't know if the patients responded to the HIV fragment of they started generating the full HIV particle endogenuosly. The vaccine does not contain enough "gp41" in itself to trigger a response only to it. If it had enough viral protein to trigger antibody production then most/all of the trial participants would have tested positive. Second of all, the "verification" that the patients were "fine" after they tested positive violates the standard protocol for confirming HIV infection after a first positive test. The standard way to confirm/reject HIV diagnosis is to follow these patients for 3-6 months then retest at least once a few months after the initial positive test. If that test is also positive then the official rules say these people have chronic HIV infection. Those tests were not done, and in fact, the only information I can find on what "routine tests" for HIV were done suggest only PCR tests were done. Those have a 20%+ false negative rate and, again, are NOT the standard way to confirm/reject HIV infection.
One can't just pick and choose when antibody tests apply and when they do not. Either the standard HIV tests work and need to be used on those 4 patients according to the standard protocol for HIV testing, or those tests are useless, in which case the question is what exactly are they measuring in the millions of people to who they are administered. Why can't some of the millions of HIV positive people around the world have also come into contact with another exosome or virus that can trigger a positive HIV test without that actually being a true infection??? @tankasnowgod voiced similar concerns earlier in the thread.
Furthermore, when the vaccine authors say themselves that "significant changes would need to be made to well-established HIV testing procedures in the healthcare setting to accommodate rollout of this vaccine", that speaks volumes by itself about its safety. Speaking of safety, why was the trial immediately halted and vaccine development abandoned if this is all just a harmless "false positive"??
Finally, I specifically asked Peat during out latest podcast if the COVID-19 vaccines can trigger an AIDS-like condition and he said emphatically "YES". His quotes on the dangers of activating the retroviruses in our genome is in the original post.
All in all, until the standard protocols for confirming/rejecting chronic HIV infection are followed, the HIV test results stand and these people are by law considered HIV positive. Either that, or the whole HIV testing mechanism is a charade.

 

[Giraffe]

Thank you for the link. When she was fainting she looked as if it was something new not a normal experience, as she alluded to, Also the video with her colleagues could have been taken any time, In this age of deceit it is best to question everything

The explanation she gives does not convince me either, but they do seem to talk about vaccination.

 

[Drareg]

This article today in the critic is quite good, by a doctor covering some of the points we allude to on here-https://thecritic.co.uk/boiling-the-bioethical-frog/