Vaccine Blues – The Aids Crusade Moves On

Bad day at Merck …. But good day at Boehringer Ingelheim! (Proud maker of Nevirapine. ‘Nevirapine – Give it to Someone You Hate’)

Why? Because: There’s Gonna be no ‘Aids Vaccine,’ after all!

WallStreetJournal: Aids Effort Suffers Big Blow

  • In a major setback, one of the leading experimental AIDS vaccines not only failed to prevent test subjects from becoming infected with HIV, but it didn’t offer any indication it might delay the onset of full-blown AIDS, which had been a key hope.
  • The collapse of the trial leaves Merck & Co., which had spent a decade developing the vaccine, with no remaining prospects in the global hunt for an AIDS immunization. The vaccine was tested in a network funded by the National Institutes of Health.”

Note: “Funded by the NIH” means, “Your Tax Money!

Gosh, it’s such a shame to have wasted all of it, huh? If only they could have predicted that injecting people with synthetic proteins from “hiv tests”, would make people come up positive on hiv tests…

Gosh and Bother.

But wait! They did predict it! They even wrote it down:

  • “A person who has antibodies to HIV-1 is presumed to be infected by the virus, except that a person who has participated in an HIV vaccine study may develop antibodies to the vaccine and may or may not be infected with HIV.” (Abbot Laboratories, 2006 ‘Hiv test’)
  • “The purpose of this study is to find out more about how persons respond to HIV-1 infection if they have received an experimental HIV-1 vaccine before they became HIV-infected. It is important to study people who have been given experimental HIV vaccines and who later became HIV-infected for several reasons.” (January 2002,

But really, any vaccination will do:

  • [R]ecent inoculation with any brand of influenza vaccine was significantly associated with a false positive screening assay for HIV antibodies

Then again. they actually don’t have any idea what the fajiminy they’re talking about:

  • “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”
  • “The risk of an asymptomatic [not chronically ill] person with a repeatedly reactive [positive] serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known.“ (Abbot Laboratories, 2006 ‘Hiv test’)

Positive, Negative…who can tell the difference? As long as you’re “at risk” to be tested… I mean, “At risk for the disease.” Well then, I’m sure the nice scientists will help you find ‘the medication that’s right for you, at a plan you can afford.’

You go Glaxxo and AZT! You go Boehringer. Ball’s in your court. No Vaccine to compete with. I guess you’ll just have to drug everybody to death….I mean… save all those lives with AZT and Nevirapine, after all.




  1. Liam, what is “non classical vaccination”? As opposed to “classical vaccination” as mentioned in the WSJ article?

    The explaination they give there sounds so way out I just had to laugh.

    Does such a thing actually exist?

  2. Well, it’s a just a huge mess for them, as you can parse from their nonsequiters.

    First, they have no singular particle from which to create a deadened or weakened particle to inject into people. This is the old western vaccine practice, to inject people with an attenuated or weakened bunch of what they believe is making people sick.

    (The oldest practice was to take a bit of dried sun-dried pus from a smallpox pustule, and blow it up the noses of children. North American Indian practice, I’ve been told.)

    But they can’t inject people with an attenuated (weakened) particle, because, remember, there’s no purified reference particle – no standard for the tests.

    The second problem is that they consider the presence of antibodies to indicate active, ‘deadly’ infection. This is the opposite of how the body likes to work.

    That is, where the body has encountered a piece of something, a particle, etc, and has produced little protein grabbers (antibodies) to it, we have understood this to mean that the body has overcome any particular infection. But with hiv-ology, the claim is that non-specific antibodies actually indicate the presence of something that has Not been regulated by the body and cells.

    So, here, even though you’ve overcome something (or in the case of ‘hiv tests’ – anything and everything and nothing in particular) – they actually get away with telling people that they’re now going to die…

    …in 18 months or 25 years, or so, (who knows? they’re scientists! they’re working on it! give them time!), so the patient really should take some anti-cell, anti-dna, anti-protein-enzyme drugs, such as “aids drugs” are, by design.

    So, that’s the basic turnaround. It’s a cockup, to be sure; ca ne functionne pas.

    Part 2: For the ‘vaccine’ makers, then, there is little to work with. No single particle – and then again, having antibodies is not, as is biologically predictable, a sign of having encountered and dealt with a putative little visitor.

    Here, they have the trick of getting people to produce antibodies to a particular particle, without having a particular particle, and without being able to get the body to produce antibodies (because, in hiv-ology, antibodies are a sure sign of (your doctor’s intention to drug you, with best intentions, and little study, to) death!)

    So, what can they do? They have to pretend that they’re going to somehow ‘stimulate TCells.’ Well, you can do this with a nice walk outside, I’d bet, better than by injecting particles from Merck’s petri dishes into your cullo.

    There’s a beautiful history of vaccination by a Dr. Andy Maniotis, up on the web somewhere. I’ll look for it and post. Beautiful, rigorous piece of work.

    In sum, no. They’re entirely full of horse manure. They knew from the start that the idea of getting people to produce antibodies (the purpose of a vaccine) for a ‘disease’ putatively ‘diagnosed’ (and it’s not, by the way) by the presence of antibodies was a fools errand.

    And the fools be the American public, of course, who fund this bullshit, with tax dollars. It’s a racket.

    If you need a few dollars, you should always invest at the beginning of any aids pogrom program. It’ll generate cash for a few years, until it fails miserably.


    cheers my friend,


  3. Thank for that Liam.

    This is all so nuts I keep praying at time that it’s me who is not getting it and that the establishent is right. After i read the explaination in the articel i nearly fell off my chair.

    What a hoot!
    It read like a piece from a Dr. Who script.

    I actually spontaneously posted on it on my blog but still had the sensation and the twisted hope that I was the one who was lacking information.

    Between us we go from “hoot” to “racket”.

    Can it get worse?

  4. Here’s a probable explanation for all of it:

    It’s got “all the hallmarks of a case of mass hysteria.”

    “Some health officials suggest that the symptoms described by the locals, the large number of people reporting symptoms, and the apparently rapid spread have all the hallmarks of a case of mass hysteria.

    “Those who say they are affected are the product of a collective psychosis,” Jorge Lopez Tejada, health department chief in Puno, the nearest city, told the Los Angeles Times.

    This psychosis could have begun as a result of fear of the meteorite and the mysterious “disease” on the part of the residents and spread as official and media reports seemed to confirm it and give it credence.

    “The Peruvian event seems to be a rare case where we may be witnessing collective anxiety that is approaching near hysteria,” said Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at John Moores University in England. “The major[ity] of the affected Peruvian town hinted that some of the mass anxiety is due to fear of imminent impacts and psychological stress which is not surprising given the premature speculation and media hype.”

  5. Thanks for keeping us all informed– the latest being about the failed “vaccine.” Although I couldn’t find the word “fajiminy” in, I thought it was an excellent word to have used in that context.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *