From HIV to HPV

Under the guise of emergency...

I would like to walk through how “virus” “isolation” has shaped the evolution of “healthcare”. From screening and diagnostic protocols, to accelerated drug approval, to the recommended vaccination schedule, and methods of control under the guise of a contagion emergency.

I remember this Gardasil commercial from 2006. It aired very frequently. I was pregnant with my first son. We had just moved to Ohio in the middle of the winter and I didn’t know anyone. We got cable and it was the first time I’d had TV in a very long time.

The little jingle that echoes behind the girls double dutching at the very end used to get stuck in my head.

O-N-E-L-E-S-S

I WANNA BE ONE LESS…ONE LESS.

Here are some fun facts:

At the time of approval (2006), actual cervical cancer prevention data didn’t exist —because it takes 10–30 years for HPV infection to lead to cancer.

Instead, researchers used precancerous cervical lesions (CIN2 and CIN3) as surrogate endpoints. These lesions are said to be “strongly predictive” of future cervical cancer if untreated.

Regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, WHO) accepted these as clinically meaningful outcomes.

By 2013, the CDC reported 56 million doses of HPV vaccine had been distributed in the U.S. since its introduction in 2006, with over 170 million doses distributed worldwide

👆 Just a heads up/PSA re this post…

---

Ok…I’m back on this virus isolation stuff. Because it fucking matters.

During this particular rabbit hole excavation, I looked at two sex viruses; HIV and HPV. Because these changed how “viruses” were “isolated” and how drugs were brought to market.

I’m still having a big problem with some very basic premises.

Why do purportedly very contagious sex viruses need to be grown in anything other than sexy cells? And when it was discovered that these very contagious viruses can’t be grown in monkey cells or cancer cells (despite being fed a delicious fetal calf serum stew), why did they assume that there was definitely the virus that they hadn’t found? And why did they decide that maybe they just needed to extract the DNA?

Why can’t you just rub some pus from a private part wart onto some skin and watch the virus highjack all the things? If 80-90% of all people get it, why can’t we see some clear transmission?

Why is there always a fucking laundry list of ingredients in the “isolation” of anything viral?

Here’s what I do know…

If they could easily show it, they would. And then they’d make it readily available and easy to find. And easy to read.

But they don’t show it. And they don’t make it easy to find. And when you find it, it’s never easy to read.

---

I have pulled the HPV thread because it is a very popular injection. Many of my clients give it to their children without question. Like ZERO questions. I know this shouldn’t be shocking at this point, but it is. This is a relatively new vaccine that falls outside the shadow of scrutiny cast from the covid op. Instead of being sold on just preventing an illness, they are selling it on preventing cancer that is supposedly caused by a virus.

I must admit that this is some exceptional marketing. I mean, most of us haven’t had much up close and personal experience with diphtheria or rubella…it might be easy to pass on those injections. But cancer? Man, cancer is on the come up and everyone is terrified of it. Everyone knows someone who’s had cancer and died.

Hey did you know that 70% of all blah blah blah cancers are caused by this HPV “virus” that you get from sex? Actually you can get if from kissing. Or even rubbing up close. Oh, and everyone is going to have it over the course of their lifetime. But did you know that we have this miracle vaccine that can prevent you from getting the BIG C????

Slow clap, scorpions. You guys are good.

And now I’d like to know how you isolated this purported virus and how do you know it causes cancer?

---

This is another lengthy post and I do apologize. I’m going to do my best to lay out an immense amount of information as succinctly as possible…but as usual, there are just so many pieces to tie together.

Let’s start with a little history…

A Bit of History…

In the wake of Thalidomide and its catastrophic damage, the Kefauver–Harris Amendment (Drug Amendments of 1962) was added to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Birth of Safe & Effective

Before the Drug Amendments of 1962, it only had to be shown* that a new drug was safe* before it could hit the market. After the passage of the amendment, an FDA New Drug Application (NDA) would have to show that a new drug was both safe and effective. This meant companies had to do a lot more leg work to bring their Rockefeller petro chemicals known as pharmaceutical drugs to market. They now had to design and conduct studies, analyze data, and submit documentation to the FDA. The approval process became longer, more expensive, and more bureaucratic.

* “shown safe” → Thalidomide

You can imagine what an irritating hold up all this 1962 Amendment red tape created for the scorpions! If only there was crisis that could make the useless eaters demand the red tape be cut…

Like a new deadly virus. That was different and from all the old ones…🤔. Hold that thought.

---

Right now I’m going to ask you to take a small detour which may seem unrelated, however I think it will help to highlight the scope and magnitude of the fuckery. As always, I could be wrong…and maybe it’s all just a coincidence.

The Sexual Revolution

Running parallel to the 1962 regulatory change we are discussing, was a distinct cultural change happening with the sexual revolution.

During the 1960s

70s,

and 80s,

…traditional family values and morals were being systematically dismantled and replaced with promiscuity advertised as an exercise of freedom. This was largely perpetuated by Hollywood and through the media. I do not believe that this was a completely natural evolution of events.

By the 1950s, it is well documented that the media and Hollywood were but an extension of the government used to manipulate and control the population. Here are a few of the psychological operations running concurrently with the sexual revolution.

• MK Ultra (CIA, 1953–1973)

  • Operation Midnight Climax (1954)

• Operation Mockingbird (CIA, 1950s–70s)

• COINTELPRO (FBI, 1956–1971)

• CIA front groups

  • The Paris Review

  • Congress for Cultural Freedom

---

At this point I would like to ask you what you think is more likely?

That a government known to be actively running operations to manipulate and control the population…

1. Also manipulated, controlled, and perpetuated the largest and perhaps most significant cultural revolution of modern day?

2. Or they just steered clear?

Here is some interesting content from Hollywood preceding the HIV/AIDS crisis:

The Boy in the Plastic Bubble (1976)

Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Death in Venice (1971)

Let us review this relevant excerpt from one Richard Day in 1969(I highly recommend reviewing The Day Tapes, if you are unfamiliar):

ENCOURAGING HOMOSEXUALITY ... ANYTHING GOES
HOMOSEXUALITY ALSO WAS TO BE ENCOURAGED.

"People will be given permission to be homosexual," that's the way it was stated. They won't have to hide it. And elderly people will be encouraged to continue to have active sex lives into the very old ages, just as long as they can. Everyone will be given permission to have sex, to enjoy however they want. Anything goes. This is the way it was put. And, I remember thinking, "how arrogant for this individual, or whoever he represents, to feel that they can give or withhold permission for people to do things!" But that was the terminology that was used. In this regard, clothing was mentioned. Clothing styles would be made more stimulating and provocative. Recall back in 1969 was the time of the mini skirt, when those mini-skirts were very, very high and very revealing. He said, "It is not just the amount of skin that is expressed ... exposed that makes clothing sexually seductive, but other, more subtle things are often suggestive.".. things like movement, and the cut of clothing, and the kind of fabric, the positioning of accessories on the clothing. "If a woman has an attractive body, why should she not show it?" was one of the statements. There was not detail on what was meant by "provocative clothing," but since that time if you watched the change in clothing styles, blue jeans are cut in a way that they're more tight-fitting in the crotch. They form wrinkles. Wrinkles are essentially arrows. Lines which direct one's vision to certain anatomic areas. And, this was around the time of the "burn your bra" activity. He indicated that a lot of women should not go without a bra. They need a bra to be attractive, so instead of banning bras and burning them, bras would come back. But they would be thinner and softer allowing more natural movement. It was not specifically stated, but certainly a very thin bra is much more revealing of the nipple and what else is underneath, than the heavier bras that were in style up to that time.

His words are supported by historical reality. During the 1960s the sexual revolution was marked by the availability of birth control (especially “the pill”), feminist thought, and a rejection of traditional moral structures. Sexual expression became tied to freedom, rebellion, and identity. It was encouraged by academics and advertised by celebrities, all pushing against the constraint of traditional values (see operations listed above for CIA infiltration on all fronts) . The sexualization of society accelerated throughout the 70s, 80s, and beyond. The sex, drugs, and rock and roll party smashed right into a crisis. And what do you know…

A new virus. That was different from all the rest…

Enter HIV

A new terrifying and horrific disease was spreading by way of engaging in the very behaviors being fomented by the sexual revolution.

Apparently this new virus wreaking havoc (HIV) was hard to “isolate” using standard cell culture methods (meaning they couldn’t get it to grow in the monkey kidney cells with the fetal calf serum soufflé). This was supposedly because it infects specific immune cells (CD4+ T cells), and it required “special culture conditions”.

HIV was deemed a “retrovirus”.

A retrovirus is a single-stranded RNA virus that inserts a DNA copy of its genome into the host cell in order to replicate. This DNA is integrated into the host’s genome, which allows the virus to hijack the host cell’s machinery to make more copies of itself.

Now, instead of looking for the cytopathic effect/CPE (cells dying on the culture plate), “the virus” was detected by reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme activity in culture fluids. This added a shiny new special effect to the “isolation” toolkit called the biochemical assay, which moved even further from the direct observation of anything.

HIV/AIDS terrified the world. It was a gruesome, horrific death.

The media reported.

The public responded.

And the solution was delivered.

HIV dramatically changed the way drugs are approved in the United States and globally. When the HIV/AIDS crisis emerged and patients were dying in large numbers. There were no approved treatments. The system, restricted by those pesky 1962 amendments, was deemed too slow and inflexible…and change not only happened, it was demanded by the public.

HIV prompted significant FDA policy change that allowed accelerated approval pathways, parallel track programs, and expanded access provisions—all of which reshaped drug development under the guise of emergency (serious and life-threatening conditions)…a pattern we continue to see play out over and over again. It’s like ExO: The Emergency Op.

Before reviewing the regulatory changes, let’s have a look at HIV “isolation”…

Here is the seminal paper:

Isolation of a T-Lymphotropic Retrovirus from a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)

Here is a screenshot from that paper:

I took the liberty of bolding some important terms from the screenshot above 👇

Fig. 3. Immunoprecipitation of 35S-labeled viral proteins. Cord blood T-lymphocytes infected with virus from patient I were incubated overnight in culture medium containing one-fifth of the normal concentrations of methionine in minimum essential medium, [35S]methionine (1500 Ci/mmole, Amersham; 50 p.Ci/ml), and 10 percent dialyzed fetal calf serum. The virus was purified by bandingon a sucrose gradient as described in Fig. 1. Labeled cells were resuspended in 10 ,ul of saline and then lysed with 90 ,u1 of RIPA buffer (18) containing aprotinin (500 U/ml;Zymofren, Specia) at 4°C for 15 minutes. The supernatant of a 10,OOOg centrifugation of the cell extract was used for immunoprecipitation. A similar extract was made from HTLV-producing C91/PL cells (17). (A) Portions (20 R1) of cell extracts were mixed with 6 ,ul of serum, incubated for 2 hours at 37°C and overnight at +4°C. Then, 60 ,ul of a suspension of Protein A-Sepharose (10 mg/ml in RIPA buffer) were added. After 45 minutes of incubation at 4°C, immunocomplexes bound to Protein A-Sepharosewere washed five times with RIPA buffer by centrifugation, heated for 3 minutes at 100°C in denaturing buffer and electrophoresedon 12.5 percent polyacrylamide-SDS slab gel (19). Lanes 1 to 5: Extract of LC1 cells infected with virus from patient I and tested against 1, serum from patient 1; 2, serum from patient 2; 3, serum of a healthy donor; 4, goat antiserum to HTLV-lp24; 5, normal goat serum. Lanes 6 to 10: C91/PL (HTLV-producing) cell extract tested with: 6, serum from patient 1; 7, serum from patient 2; serum of a healthy donor; 4, goat antiserum to HTLV-lp24; 5, normal goat serum. (B) Portions (20 p.1) of the band containing virus from patient1 were treated with various antisera and processed as described for cell extracts. Lane 1, serum from patient 1; 2, serum from patient 2; 3, serum of a healthy donor; 4, serum of another healthy donor; 5, goat antiserum to HTLVIp24. Arrows indicate the p24-p25 protein. Molecular weights (in thousands) are indicated on the left.

👆Was that confusing? Good. I am pretty sure that’s part of all this. Let me whisper this bullshit for you.

Since HIV doesn’t grow on regular monkey kidney cells feeding on a delicious diet of fetal calf serum, The Science™ decided that maybe the invisible, ungrowable, unfindable virus might miraculously be making visible proteins 🧐. Maybe they could identify proteins supposedly made by the virus (that they couldn’t find) and “show” that the invisible virus was there.

Perhaps the unobservable virus was making certain proteins inside blood cells and they should look there. And in a monumental, logically fallacious feat of epic proportions, they took cells from umbilical cord blood and added the assumed virus that was never found, and never separated from everything else.

Then they fed the cells radioactive methionine, which is almost like isolation, just kidding it’s nothing like isolation, so that whatever the cells made would light up and could be labeled as “evidence” of a “virus”.

Next, they broke the cells open using soap. Then they added Protein A-Sepharose, that supposedly sticks to antibodies that supposedly came from the blood of people who were sick. Then they heated everything up and added it to a magical gel that is basically like the sorting hat from Harry Potter.

When the antibodies found a virus protein, they stuck to it and then the magical, magnetic Protein A-Sepharose pulled out all the pieces. Then they heated everything up and ran it through the gel that supposedly sorts the proteins by size.

In the end, they looked to see which proteins were glowing and were “recognized” by the antibodies. That told them that even though the virus was invisible, it really was inside the cells because it was making certain proteins.

Sooo, with 👆that bullshit as the foundational proof of HIV…

The following regulatory changes happened because HIV EMERGENCY👇:

• In 1987, the FDA issued rules formalizing “treatment INDs (Investigational New Drugs)”—allowing seriously ill patients to access investigational drugs before FDA approval. This was a direct response to pressure from AIDS activists and physicians seeking early access to promising therapies like AZT. It standardized what had previously been ad-hoc compassionate use requests.

• Starting in 1988–1989, the FDA adopted the "parallel track" policy, formally allowing access to investigational HIV drugs for patients unable to enroll in clinical trials, without undermining randomized research studies.

• In 1988, FDA promulgated Subpart E regulations, codifying an expedited development pathway modeled on AZT’s clinical trial design. This enabled early and close collaboration between FDA and sponsors, the omission of phase 3 trials under certain conditions, and priority review classification for AIDS drugs (Type AA).

• In 1992, Congress passed PDUFA (P.L. 102‑571), authorizing FDA to collect user fees from drug companies to fund faster drug review (buy approval). It codified Priority Review and led directly to the creation of Accelerated Approval (Subpart H), permitting earlier approval based on surrogate endpoints for serious diseases like HIV/AIDS.

• The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) formally codified Fast‑Track designation, which originated from HIV-era Subpart E practices. This designation supports frequent FDA‑sponsor meetings, rolling review, and earlier approval.

• Subsequent PDUFA reauthorizations (PDUFA II in 1997 through PDUFA V in 2012, and PDUFA VI in 2017) expanded accelerated pathways, reduced evidence requirements, and introduced Breakthrough Therapy designation in FDASIA 2012 (PDUFA V)—a direct evolution of fast-track procedures rooted in HIV-era reforms

Okie dokie.

Just to summarize because that was a lot…🕺🏻

The HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s catalyzed a transformation in U.S. drug regulation which led to the following walk back of the 1962 Amendments:

• Formalized early access to investigational new drugs (treatment INDs)

• Broad distribution via parallel track (for people who didn’t qualify for clinical trials)

• Structured expedited review paths (Subparts E & H)

• Institutionalized fast-track and breakthrough designations

These changes continue to underpin the current accelerated approval pathways used presently for many conditions/diseases labeled serious and/or life‑threatening.

Oh look, here’s cervical cancer on this HIV sign…

I guess that was before they found out about HPV and its cervical cancer causing ways. Hey, did you know that there’s over 200 types of HPV??? I am not kidding.

Here’s the seminal HPV paper:

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Biopsies and extraction of DNA

The various types of papillomas as well as cervical, vulvar and penile carcinomas were obtained after surgical removal. They were frozen immediately and stored until DNA extraction. DNA from tumor biopsies was extracted as described before (zur Hausen et al., 1970).

I don’t know about you, but I’m not familiar with how DNA extraction has been previously described. Let’s just take a look at the citation: zur Hausen et al., 1970 👇

Preparations of viral DNA

HPV 6 DNA was isolated from an individual genital wart (Gissmann and zur Hausen, 1980) and cloned in pBR 322 as described previously (de Villiers et al.,1981). The plasmid DNA was purified using the method of Clewell and Helinski (1969). For hybridization experiments the HPV-pBR hybrid DNA was used without prior removal of the vector.

(((sigh)))

Here we go again. This, by the way, is an excellent example of how NOT EASY it is to SEE what they are doing! Instead of just saying, “We did X, Y, and Z,” they have THREE different citations that you will need to look up if you’d like to understand what they mean when they say that they “isolated, cloned, and purified the DNA”.

Alrighty, these Gissmann and zur Hausen guys were really interested in the sex warts. You can see above that they cited themselves for the genital wart DNA isolation. So I looked that paper up, and I think the first paragraph in the Materials and Methods section sufficiently shows that calling this isolation is a real stretch.

Just like HIV, HPV can’t be grown by the normal cell culture fuckery, so they allegedly pull out some DNA and say that proves a virus. And then they pull DNA out of a cancer tumor and say they found HPV DNA and that means HPV causes cancer.

So it turns out that HPV is not just a regular virus that is the product of your sinful sex life (which you are being encouraged to lead everywhere you look)…it is an oncogenic virus. That you get from from your sex holes. Just like HIV.

HPV is a special kind of magician virus that, according to CDC, will infect 85% of all people who won’t even know they have it because most infections are asymptomatic and resolve spontaneously on their own. Amazing!

Luckily, 90% of cancers caused by HPV could be prevented, says CDC, if only we vaccinate all 11 and 12 year olds with two doses.

Well thank GAWD the regulatory red tape was already slashed for sex hole cancer causing viruses so they could get this vaccine out to all the kids already.

The approval and development of HPV vaccines (like Gardasil and Cervarix), easily slid through the new, HIV updated regulatory-ish process with the precedents set during the HIV/AIDS crisis.

• The fast-track, accelerated approval, and priority review pathways (created for HIV therapies) were now available for the new serious sex disease HPV-that is “proven” to cause cancer.

• Gardasil received priority review designation in 2006 due to its cancer-prevention potential—this would not have been possible without the HIV-era precedent that serious disease prevention justifies accelerated timelines.

• Gardasil was approved based on a surrogate endpoint (its supposed ability to prevent high-grade pre-cancerous lesions).

• The FDA’s Subpart E and Subpart H frameworks (from HIV drug development) enabled earlier approval based on these surrogate endpoints—like HPV antibody titers instead of waiting for actual cancer outcomes.

• This pathway allowed for earlier licensure, even though long-term cancer outcomes were unknown.

• HPV vaccine clinical trials were funded in part by public-private partnerships with models borrowed from HIV vaccine trials (e.g., NIH, Merck, and the National Cancer Institute collaborations).

And “support” data for these cancer prevention claims was…🤨

On May 18, 2006, the FDA held a meeting of the “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee” (VRBPAC). Take a look at page 13 where the Gardasil vaccine appears to increase cancer risk by 44.6% 👇

That’s weird. -44.6% efficacy??? The commercial doesn’t mention that part…

That german chap, Harald zur Hausen, is credited with the HPV/cancer link. In the early/mid 1980s he supposedly isolated HPV-16 and 18 from cervical cancer tissue.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Blot Hybridization of Cellular DNA.

Tissue biopsy samples were kept frozen at -20'C. DNA was prepared by phenol/chloroform/isoamyl alcohol extraction as described (10). About 10 ug of tumor DNA was cleaved by using various restriction endonucleases, separated on agarose gels, and transferred onto nitrocellulose filters. Hybridization was done in 0.75 M NaCl/0.075 M sodium citrate and various concentrations of formamide at 420C (10) with tRNA instead of calf thymus DNA as carrier. 32P-Labeled HPV DNA cloned in plasmid pBR322 was purified from the vector by electrophoresis prior to nick-translation. Filters were washed in 0.30 M NaCl/0.03 M sodium citrate/0. 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate at the respective hybridization temperature. For screening of tumor DNA, filters were hybridized under conditions of low stringency (400C below the melting temperature,tm), kept moist before and during exposure, rewashed under stringent conditions (200C below tm), and exposed again. Cloning of Viral DNA. HPV DNA from a cervical carcinoma (laboratory code WV2916) was cloned in bacteriophage A L47 at the single BamHI site (11) and subcloned in pBR322.

Check it out…PROOF!! 👇

---

In addition to the weak sauce evidence that HPV actually causes cancer, evidence that Gardasil prevents cancer is also remarkably weak.

Cervical cancer causes 1 death in 43,500 Americans, with a median age of cervical cancer diagnosis at 50. Merck tested Gardasil against lesions (CIN2 and CIN3), not cancer itself. Only a small fraction of these lesions ever even progress to cancer. See detailed effectiveness information and statistics.

Oh well…sounds like an emergency to me! Approve that shit. Who cares?

Maybe the parents who thought they were protecting their child, but ended up planning a funeral instead…

And all the disabled kids probably care…

After Gardasil's introduction in the United States in 2006, a study examining adverse events from 2006 to 2009 showed concerning statistics compared to meningococcal vaccination another poison injection:

• There were 26.5 times more disability events.

• Emergency department visits increased by 8.5 times

• Life-threatening events occurred 10 times more often.

• Hospitalizations were 12.5 times more frequent.

Gosh, I wonder what a comparison against no injection at all would look like…

Are you wondering if they pumped the brakes? They didn’t.

Despite safety concerns raised during clinical trials and mounting reports of horrible adverse reactions, subsequent vaccine versions were approved, including the NINE-valent Gardasil 9. These approvals came despite evidence linking Gardasil to serious vaccine injuries and deaths, particularly among young women.

The never isolated HIV created the tools, urgency, and precedent that made it possible to:

• Approve vaccines more quickly for cancer prevention

• Use immune surrogate markers (like antibodies) for efficacy

• Deploy broad vaccination recommendations using CDC/ACIP precedent.

The acceptance of a theory (virology), based on flawed evidence (cell culture method as isolation), and the subsequent conclusions has set an enormous precedent…and the impact cannot be overstated. Then when a supposed virus couldn’t be grown in their biological slop fest, they starting grinding shit up with sand and salt and washing and spinning and dousing in all the chemicals…and moved even further from direct observation of anything.

It’s like kicking the soccer ball at the goal and missing but counting it as a point.

And then missing the goal again from a different angle. Boom, another point.

And then with an imaginary ball. Point.

And then in a computer game. Two points.

I win. I scored all the points.

Excuse me, but you missed the goal.

Doesn’t matter…I’m sorry you don’t understand how to score points in soccer.

But the ball has to go INTO the net.

It did. See, here’s an electron microscopy picture of a piece of the field.

We circled our points for you. Those are clearly our points and this discussion is over. We win soccer.

And tennis. Which causes cancer because we saw shadows on the football field.

---

Hey, there are dangerous sex viruses and you should be careful. Luckily there are vaccines that will keep you from getting sex virus cancer.

Check out this song that won all these awards:

• American Music Awards (2020) – Favorite Song – Rap/Hip-Hop — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties

• People’s Choice Awards – Collaboration Song of the Year — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties

• BET Awards (2021) – Best Collaboration — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties
  BET Awards (2021) – Video of the Year — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties

• BET Hip Hop Awards — Best Hip Hop Video — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties
  BET Hip Hop Awards — Best Collaboration — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties
  BET Hip Hop Awards — Song of the Year — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties

• BMI Awards — Award-Winning Songs — Won Megan Thee Stallion Hotties

https://ko-fi.com/conspiracysarah