It is truly a blessing when we come across the work of those we do not know yet through their words, we find a connection that transforms us in unexpected ways. People can have profound impacts on our lives without the person ever knowing us and without them ever realizing it. Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos was such a person in my life. I do not know Eleni and sadly never got the chance to communicate with her as she passed away yesterday. However, the work that Eleni did through the Perth Group dissecting the HIV-AIDS dogma was instrumental in my awakening to the “virus” lie. It would be remiss of me if I did not honor her in some way. The best way that I can eulogize Eleni is to present a selection of her work with the Perth Group as well as provide links to interviews she has done throughout her career. My hope is that you can come away with a similar positive life-changing experience from Eleni just as I did.
For those who do not know about Eleni and the Perth Group, this is a brief summary about the group from their site:
“The Perth Group of was formed in 1981 in Perth, Western Australia. The three original members are the leader, biophysicist Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, emergency physician Valendar F Turner and Professor of Pathology John Papadimitriou. Over the years several other scientists have contributed to or joined the Group. These are physicists Bruce Hedland-Thomas, David Causer and Barry Page, Florida USA biochemist Todd Miller and Colombian physician/medical researcher Helman Alfonso. The Perth Group has published scientific papers and letters in peer reviewed medical journalsas well as in the popular press. Two of the group are invited members of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel and have presented our material in various forums including the Presidential Panel and via satellite at the Geneva International AIDS Conference.”
Eleni and the Perth Group were prominent in the AIDS reappraisal movement and argued several points which destroyed the HIV=AIDS dogma. These include:
- Failure to prove the existence of a unique, exogenously acquired retrovirus, HIV.
- Failure to verify the HIV antibody tests proof of HIV infection.
- Failure to prove HIV causes immune deficiency (destruction of T4 lymphocytes) or AIDS.
- The impossibility of haemophiliacs acquiring HIV following factor VIII infusions.
- Failure to prove the HIV genome, (RNA or DNA) originates in a unique exogenously acquired infectious retroviral particle.
- Failure to prove HIV/AIDS is infectious, either by blood, blood products or sexual intercourse.
- Failure to prove what is called AIDS in Africa or Thailand is caused by HIV or is sexually transmitted.
- That AIDS and all the phenomena inferred as “HIV” are induced by changes in cellular redox brought about by the oxidative nature of substances and exposures common to all the AIDS risk groups and to the cells used in the “culture” and “isolation” of HIV.
- That AIDS will not spread outside the original risk groups and that cessation of exposure to oxidants and/or use of anti-oxidants will improve the outcome of AIDS patients.
- That pharmacological data prove AZT cannot kill HIV and AZT is toxic to all cells and may cause AIDS.
A great overview of the views of the Perth Group was presented by Eleni in the below 1997 article. You can see that Eleni and the Perth Group laid the foundation for the main arguments many of us use to disprove virology today. They argued that there were no purified/isolated HIV particles, that the EM images were random particles picked out from impure preparations, that the antibody results are unproven and nonspecific, and that the use of antibody/protein reactions as proof in lieu of purification/isolation is illogical and unscientific.
A CRITIQUE OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE ISOLATION OF HIV
A Summary of the Views of Papadopulos et. al.
The proposal that AIDS is caused by a unique, infectious retrovirus requires proof for the existence of such a retrovirus. Since the announcement of the discovery of certain laboratory phenomena claimed as proof of the existence of HIV we have critically analysed the data and have always maintained that no such proof exists [1-11].
A virus is a microscopic particle of particular size and shape (morphology) which contains particular constituents (biochemical properties) and which is able to replicate only at the behest of living protoplasm, that is, a virus is an obligatory intracellular parasite. Replication of a virus-like particle is the property which defines the particle as being infectious, that is, virus-like particle + replication = virus. These defining data determine that the only way to prove the existence of a novel (new) virus is to (i) isolate viral-like particles, that is, first obtain the particles separate from everything else; (ii) determine their morphological characteristics; (iii) analyse their constituents (nucleic acid and proteins) demonstrating that such properties are those of retroviruses and are unique; (iv) prove that the particles are infectious, that is, when pure particles are introduced into non-infected cell cultures, new but identical particles appear. Only then can the viral-like particles be deemed to a virus. In the case of retroviruses, the steps in this procedure were developed over the half century that preceded the AIDS era and are described in Toplin and Sinoussi. [12,13]. These steps are:
1. Culture of putatively infected cells demonstrating that such cultures contain retroviral-like particles, that is, particles virtually spherical in shape with a diameter of 100-120nM and with “condensed inner bodies (cores)” and surfaces “studded with projections (knobs)” .
2. Purification of a sample by ultracentrifugation through a sucrose density gradient. A test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, is prepared light at the top but gradually becoming heavier towards the bottom. A drop of supernatant (decanted) cell culture fluid is gently placed on top of the sucrose column and the test-tube is centrifuged for several hours at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces forcing any particles present through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents further penetration. For retroviral particles this occurs where the density of the sucrose solution reaches 1.16 gm/ml. At this the point the particles concentrate or, to use virological terminology, this is where the particles band. The 1.1 band is then selectively extracted for further analysis.
3. Using the electron microscope (EM), photograph the 1.16 band proving there are particles of the correct morphology and no other material.
4. Disrupt and analyse the constituents of such particles.
5. Introduce pure particles into a virgin culture and, by repeating the above steps, prove that identical particles are produced.
To date, many electron micrographs of particles claimed to be retrovirus-like have been published. However, not one of these micrographs demonstrates particles satisfying both main morphological features of retroviral particles, that is, a diameter of 100-120nM and a surface studded with knobs. (HIV researchers are unanimous that the knobs contain a protein, gp120, which is essential for the first step in infection and replication, that is, for the particle to fuse with the membrane of an uninfected cell in order that the HIV particle with its ‘HIV RNA” gains access to the interior of the cell .
To prove the existence of HIV, both Montagnier’s group in 1983 and Gallo’s group in 1984 banded supernatant in sucrose density gradients. However, until March 1997, for unknown reasons, neither these groups nor anyone else had ever published an electron micrograph of the banded (purified) material to show which if any of the many different variety of particles seen in gross cell cultures  are present at 1.16 gm/ml. Indeed, until March this year it was not possible to know whether any structured material whatsoever was present at the density which defines retroviral particles. Nonetheless, from the time of the Montagnier and Gallo studies [16,17], the material from culture supernatants banding at 1.16 gm/ml has been regarded as pure HIV particles. Acting on this premis, the proteins which are present in this band and which react with antibodies present in the sera of AIDS patients are claimed to be the HIV proteins and the antibodies reacting with such proteins the HIV antibodies. Similarly, a particular portion of the RNA banding at 1.16 gm/ml is claimed to be the HIV genome. All these conclusions were drawn without ever proving that the proteins and RNA are structural elements of a particle, viral-like, retroviral-like or any other particle of any other kind, that is, without any scientific basis.
This March, two papers [18,19] were published with electron micrographs of sucrose density gradient banded material. In one of these papers the authors confirmed that:
“Virus to be used for biochemical and serological [using “viral” proteins to test for antibodies in patients] analyses or as an immunogen [to produce antibodies in animals and test patients for “viral” proteins] is frequently prepared by centrifugation through sucrose density gradients. The fractions containing viral antigen [proteins] and/or infectivity are considered to contain a population of relatively pure viral particles”  (italics ours).
However, to the contrary, the data in these papers support our claim that the existence of HIV is unproven:
1. The authors of both papers concede that the particles which are present in the banded material and which are said to be HIV represent only a very small fraction of the total material. Gelderblom et al. state that the material contains “an excess of [cellular] vesicles with a size range 50-500nm, as opposed to a minor population of virus particles…cellular vesicles appear…to be a major contaminant of HIV preparations enriched by sucrose gradient centrifugation”.
2. For the small number of particles deemed to be “HIV” no evidence is given that they are even a retrovirus-like particle. Indeed, to the contrary:
(a) the particles do not appear to have surface spikes (knobs), although the possibility that such projections may be present cannot be excluded. (However, in other papers published by many researchers including Gelderblom and his associates such projections are noted to be absent [14,20];
(b) the particles referred to as “HIV” are not spherical and have diameters exceeding 100-120 nM. In the EM in Gluschankof et al.  there are arrows pointing to five “HIV” particles devoid of surface projections whose dimensions are 121 X 145; 121 X 169; 121 X 145, 121 X 145 and 133 X 145 nM respectively. In Bess et al.  there are a total of six “HIV particles” also devoid of surface projections whose dimensions are 160 X 240; 200 X 240; 280 X 280; 208 X 250; 167 X 250 and 250 X 292 and nM respectively.
Thus, by definition, the particles cannot be retroviral-like particles and even less, a unique retrovirus, HIV. Furthermore, the particles noted by Gluschankof et al. and Bess et al. cannot be the same particle. Indeed, the method adopted by all HIV researchers for proving the existence of HIV, that is, excluding proof based on purification of particles with retroviral morphology shown capable of faithful replication but rather by detection of antibody/protein reactions, does not satisfy any scientific principle and defies common sense.
Department of Medical Physics
Royal Perth Hospital
Perth, Western Australia
There is no way that I can do justice and summarize the amazing work that Eleni and the Perth Group provided throughout the years. Eleni was a trailblazer and a rare scientist who was honest enough to question the dogma and challenge the evidence presented by the establishment. Presented below are links to many of the groundbreaking and truly enlightening papers, both published and unpublished, that helped to expose the “virus” lie:
The redox theory of cellular function
Papers and letters published in scientific journals
Papers published in Continuum magazine
Papers published in the popular press
Papers and letters rejected by editors of scientific journals
Eleni Interview: Does HIV Exist?
Click to access PapadopulosCJohnsonInterview1997.pdf
Besides the above papers, Eleni was featured in House of Numbers and The Emperor’s New Virus? documentaries. I have provided links to both and I highly recommend taking the time to watch them. I have also included a link to a news segment featuring Eleni and the Perth Group discussing the HIV fraud:
House of Numbers
The Emperor’s New Virus?
Never Broadcast Channel 4 News Report From 1998 Challenges Existence of HIV “Virus”
Eleni was a torch bearer who shined a light in the darkness and paved the way for those of us currently fighting to expose the fraud of virology for all to see. Eleni and the Perth Group gave scientific credibility and validation to the argument that the particles assumed to be “viruses” had not been properly purified and isolated nor proven pathogenic. She touched the lives of many and left an indelible mark on the crusade for truth. Eleni’s time carrying the torch may be over, but her work lives on and her influence can be seen in those of us who will pick up the torch and carry it for her going forward.
I admit I have never heard of this woman. I do hope she has found peace where ever she is. It is a sad day when any scientist or medical professional who has the courage to challenge the medical mafia/big pharma dictatorship leaves the world. I was also saddened to learn of Bill Sardi’s death in February. He was somewhat of a pioneer in alternative health care and it was always interesting to listen to his views on a medical subject.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eleni is definitely someone who deserves to be more well-known, along with the rest of the Perth Group. They were pioneers in debunking the methods used as proof for the “virus” lie. For obvious reasons, their work was heavily censored by the MSM and scientific community. There have been others in the AIDS dissident movement who have sadly passed away recently, including Kary Mullis, Dr. Roberto Giraldo, and researcher David Crowe. It is heartbreaking to lose them but fortunately we have their words to return to in case we need them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate your time writing this tribute. You help fight the great inversion by holding up and celebrating a great soul. We need so much more of this energy in the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I hope that my post may help to introduce some who may not have known about Eleni or the Perth Group to her work. Her efforts should be seen, read, shared, and appreciated. I want to make sure her contribution is never forgotten. I plan to do posts about others who are gone but made giant contributions as well.
I only learned about Eleni last year, and her work with the Perth Group. A shining light, a courageous woman, a truth seeker, We need more like her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We definitely need more like her. It is sad that Eleni is gone but at least she lives on through her work. ❤🙏
RIP, Eleni. I only learned of her last month, thanks to a mention by Dr Cowan on a video he and Dr Kaufman did, and then heard more of her via this page. Hopefully someone can pick up her torch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. I hope her work will gain the attention it deserves.
Great article! But I have a question for you. Eleni apparently strongly believed that, in orderd to find a “virus”, we need purification of a sample by ultracentrifugation through a sucrose density gradient. But Harold Hillman was rather critical about this method used in cellular biology. Do you think that it is an appropriate method in orderd to try to find and purify such kind of particles? I think that ultracentrifugation could change and distrupt the “things” we want to analyze. Or it could create these “things” that we want to discover.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe Eleni was attempting to hold virology to the standards they set forth in 1973 which required ultracentrifugation through a sucrose density gradient. The steps were outlined here:
The Rules of Isolation
The rules for isolation of a retrovirus were thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute, Paris, in 1973, and are the logical minimum requirements for establishing the independent existence of HIV. They are:
1.Culture of putatively infected tissue.
2. Purification of specimens by density gradient ultracentrifugation.
3. Electron micrographs of particles exhibiting the morphological characteristics and dimensions (100-120 nm) of retroviral particles at the sucrose (or percoll) density of 1.16 gm/ml and containing nothing else, not even particles of other morphologies or dimensions.
4. Proof that the particles contain reverse transcriptase.
5. Analysis of the particles’ proteins and RNA and proof that these are unique.
6. Proof that 1-5 are a property only of putatively infected tissues and can not be induced in control cultures. These are identical cultures, that is, tissues obtained from matched, unhealthy subjects and cultured under identical conditions differing only in that they are not putatively infected with a retrovirus.
7. Proof that the particles are infectious, that is when PURE particles are introduced into an uninfected culture or animal, the identical particle is obtained as shown by repeating steps 1-5.
I am not sure whether Eleni believed purification and isolation are achievable in that way or not. However, I agree with you that using the methods proposed for purification, there is no way the sample makes it through the process without being altered in some way, yet that is the corner virology backed itself into when attempting to claim invisible-to-the-naked-eye particles cause disease. Virologists must logically prove and validate that these methods do not alter and/or create the very particles they are looking for. We already know that virologists admit that these methods do damage the “viruses” so essentially they have already conceded that they can not purify them with these methods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, I would like to share with you the one and only paper I found that in some way apparently meets the above criteria of isolation.
It’s about tobacco mosaic virus. I think that we shouldn’t easily dismiss this paper. Maybe are these kind of “isolation” tricks valid just for the plants? I don’t know if there are some other papers that replicate this experiment.
You can find the paper at this link: https://sci-hub.st/10.1085/jgp.31.1.89
If it doesn’t appear try to refresh the page or try this link: https://rupress.org/jgp/article-pdf/31/1/89/1240078/89.pdf
This study is named STUDIES ON THE SONIC TREATMENT OF TOBACCO MOSAIC VIRUS*
BY GERALD OSTER
(From the Department of Animal and Plant Patlwlogy of The Rockefeller
Institute for Medical Research, Primaon, New Jersey)
(Received for publication May 15 t 1947)
From the introduction:
“Takahashi and Christensen (1) found that the juice of plants suffering from tobacco mosaic virus disease was rendered non-infectious when subjected to intense sonic vibrations. Stanley (2) found that the biological activity of purified tobacco mosaic virus is reduced by sonic treatment and demonstrated that the sound has little or no effect on the activity of the virus if cavitation, normally associated with strong vibrations in liquids, is supressed by a lowering of the atmospheric pressure above the liquid. Kauschc, Pfankuch, and Ruska (3) found with the electron microscope that sonic treated tobacco mosaic virus samples contained more short rod-like particles than are observed in untreated samples. The sonic treatment apparently results in a breakage into shorter fragments of the long rod-like particles associated with the tobacco mosaic virus disease and offers a convenient method of studying the relation between the size of the particles and their biological activity. In experiments described in this paper, samples of centrifugally purified tobacco mosaic virus were subjected to strong sound vibrations for varying lengths of time. The physicochcmical properties of the sonic treated material were determined and the material was tested for biological activity. The virus particles as well as the fragments produced by sonic treatment were made to aggregate end-to-end and the properties of the aggregates were studied”
1) So, they apparently purified “something”. At the electron microscope it appears as long rod-like particles
2) these long rod-like particles were infectious on N. glutinosa
3) After these “particles” were subjected to strong sound vibrations they lost their infectiousness on N. glutinosa
4) This treatement resulted in purified shorter fragments of rod-like particle visible at the electron microscope
In order to purify the tobacco mosaic “virus” they used differential centrifugation by the method of Stanley, but I dont’ know the difference between this method and the usual ultracentrifugation method through a sucrose density gradient.
This method could have introduced some sample modification. In order to prepare these samples for electron microscopy they treated them with gold shadow cast according to the method of Williams and Wyckoff.
I read that in electron microscopy, different treatment could lead to different “things” that appear in the micrographs.
Moreover they attempted to find out the so called nucleic acids:”An attempt was made to determine whether nucleic acid was released on breakage of the particles by sonic treatment. An aqueous solution of purified tobacco mosaic virus, which had been sonic treated for 32 minutes, was brought to a concentration of 0.1 ~ with respect to sodinm’chloride. The solution was then brought to its isoelectric point with dilute acetic acid and the precipitated material was spun for 15 minutes at 5,000 R.P.M. in an angle centrifuge. Since no nitrogen was detectable in the clear supernatant it may be concluded that no nucleic acid or other nitrogen-containing substances soluble at this p H and salt con-centration was released.” So does this mean that no nucleic acids were found?
“The biological activity of the sonic treated tobacco mosaic virus was determined from the number of lesions produced by it on N. glutinosa according to the local lesion method of Holmes and others”
“The samples were diluted in phosphate buffer so that each sample would give a number of lesions on one-half of the leaf comparable to the number given by the control material, diluted 1:500, on the other half. In Table I are given the results of these tests”
“In order to determine whether the shorter rods have an inhibitory effect on the larger ones, mixtures of the control and the 64 minute treated sample were made and applied to the plants. It was found that there was no appreciable difference in activity which could not be accounted for on the basis of the relative activities of the constituents of the mixtures.”
So they apparently found out something that, after sonic vibrations, produced a less number of lesions on N. glutinosa.
They concluded that “The biological activity of the samples, as determined by the hal/leaf lesion method, decreased exponen-tially with time of sonic treatment with a rate constant given by k = 0.13
rain_ 1. A correlation exists between the size distributions and biological activity and shows that only the particles of length 280 mtt are the biologically active units.
Tobacco mosaic virus particles can be made to aggregate end-to-end when the material is heated at its isoelectric point and reheated after being brought back to pH 7. Material which was not sonic treated and was made to aggre-
gate showed reduced biological activity, but the activity was increased when the aggregated material was subjected to strong mechanical stirring. Material which was sonic treated for 32 minutes and which was made to aggregate
showed the same biological activity as the material which was sonic treated but not aggregated”
There are a few electron microscope micrographs; in my opinion the visual field is not so wide to finally establish that these were the only particles present in the specimens. In Figure 1 and 2 It seems to me that there are other impurities. Moreover It seems that there is no micrographs of “uninfected” samples. Could these rod particles also be present in “uninfected” samples?
In your opinion did they really find “something” infectious? Obviously the plants that are sick present degenerated or rot organic matter. Maybe was this rot organic matter that made the other plants sick. Sonic treatment of this rot organic matter inhibited in some way the disease process in the “infected” plants.
I have not looked at the original study for TMV yet but others I know have and have said the methods were just as faulty and did not follow the scientific method. From my understanding, they emulsify the whole plant and then look for particles they claim as “virus.” I’m not positive how they show pathogenicity or not in the study. I would have to look into the original study myself to comment further on their methods. However, I have not had any desire as my focus has been on human “viruses.” The methods used for TMV have never been successfully performed on any human sample to produce a “virus.” Some day I will look into TMV more but as we are not plants and can not be infected by plant “viruses,” it isn’t a present concern. I’m sorry I don’t have a better answer at the moment.
Hello, iss’ me NiciesMan again(!)
Currently, I’m sick. What exactly do you think are the primary causes of diseases, and why do you think that?
Also, you said that about 1% of people who got crapcinated (in the 2009 study) died (or was it that they just had some reaction?). Assuming that is true for the “covid” crapcine, that would mean tens of millions have died already! Do you think that’s true? And how do you think death rates from “covid” crapcines can be measured (as opposed to the crapcines from 2009)?
Thanks!! And God bless!
I don’t think there is only one primary cause. I believe there are many factors which work in combination such as consuming non-organic food, drinking fluorinated/chlorinated water, taking pharmaceuticals, getting vaccinated, doing recreational drugs, drinking too much alcohol, not getting enough exercise/sleep, not getting enough sunlight, being over-stressed and overworked, consistent exposure to EMF’s and other forms of radiation, breathing polluted air and being exposed to a polluted environment, exposure to cleaning and other chemicals, etc. I believe one of the biggest factors in respiratory disease is air pollution but it is not the only factor.
As for the vaccines, I do believe there are many unreported deaths from these jabs. They either go unreported due to people being unaware of the potential lethal side effects, especially related to blood clotting, as well as vaccine deaths being reported as caused by other factors. I don’t believe there is any way to know the true total death toll the vaccines are bringing about. The only thing I know is there is no reason to ever play Russian roulette by injecting yourself with one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, sad to hear. RIP Eleni. I’d have liked to shake her hands once at least…and thank her for all she’s done. She truly embodied courage, simplicity and clarity in reasoning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A sad day. She will be missed.
Thank you for this tribute to Eleni and her work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome. Eleni will be missed but she will live on through her work. ❤🙏
Mike, I have just come across your tribute to Eleni. It is indeed a wonderful tribute to her and her work and as her brother I thank you sincerely on behalf of myself and the family. She was indeed an extra ordinary lady.
Many thanks, George
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome. 🙂 Eleni was definitely extraordinary. I’m glad that I was able to provide a tribute to your sister. Her work had a profound impact on myself and many others. I will do my part to help keep her work and contributions alive. ❤🙏
Stefan Lanka learned a lot from Eleni : Just to share a short part of “Freedom Talk 6 from Dean Braus interviews” ( Scientific response to the Corona Commitee , with Lanka , Kaufman and Cowan ) :
This is the link:
Val and Eleni’s, marked a before and after and opened a door to thousands of people around the world including doctors, scientists, “virologists”, biologists… Those who today can resume the work and strengthen it, not only recovering the basis of the questioning of the fraud of the 80’s, but also completely revising the so-called “virology”. This is a hard task, I cannot imagine what they have gone through together in the Perth Group basically against the whole group that perhaps politically insisted on standing in the middle, in “a harmless virus position ” ( same as lawyers and doctors “for truth” in this new hoax we are living ) and either out of fear, out of ego, or by not being singled out, they fought in that direction in the past. What, in my opinion, was losing a valuable opportunity that could have prevented this point from being reached, in which “virology” was established as a weapon of global control based on fear, and this phantom “things” keep the fear and the loss of humanity in most people , now globally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link and the excellent insight! Eleni and the Perth Group were trailblazers and they (along with Lanka and others) definitely helped move this conversation forward. I completely get what you are saying where there was a middle ground or tightrope being walked. Maybe it was due to the times that they felt that was the necessary path. Whatever the reason, I am grateful for all that Eleni and the others did do, as without them, I’m not sure I would be doing what I am able to do today. For that, I will forever be in their debt. She will be missed. ❤🙏
Hi Mike, this is my SECOND TIME trying to get this message posted here…?? The video that Misha provided in the message above is NO LONGER available (youtube deleted it, of course). So I am hoping that you can PLEASE POST the following link to the ORIGINAL, full-length video that Misha referenced in the message above. The link to the original video where Stefan Lanka shared his thoughts about the now-deceased Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is at: https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1/FT-6-Special PLEASE NOTE: You need to FAST FORWARD to the 46:58 time mark of this video at this link in order to see Lanka’s specific comments. If anyone else knows how to create a link to this video on ODYSEE that leads DIRECTLY to that time stamp, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, just fast forward to 46:58. THANKS!
Thanks Rod, yes that channel was deleted by youtube… I upload that part again here : https://ugetube.com/watch/lanka-thanks-the-perthgroup-mp4_xd5tP3xji5kDJXe.html
The best for you,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for replying Misha, and a big THANK YOU for creating that new short video excerpt for us to see! That is very nice! And it’s much easier than having to fast forward through the original video. THANKS AGAIN!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Perth Group’s work was one of the first things that woke me up. I discovered them via Liam Scheff. Thanks for honouring Eleni
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are very welcome Jeremy. The Perth Group, Liam Scheff, Dr. Lanka, David Crowe, Kary Mullis, Dr. Roberto Giraldo, etc. were all instrumental is my awakening to the lies of virology. I hope to honor them all in some way. 🙂