Why the Official AIDS Story is a Complete Crock

The Great Rebranding, 1980s-Style: HIV Was a Sham, Just Like Sars-Cov-2

All you youngsters born after the Glomesh era have surely heard of AIDS, but probably have no idea of just how big a deal it was when it burst onto the scene in the early 1980s.

It was the biggest show in town. Sure, it wasn't as big a deal as what COVID would later be. It wasn't accompanied by 'vaccine' mandates, lockdowns or heavily-armed goons bashing people for sitting peacefully in the park. Instead of masks, there were condoms and paper toilet seat covers. There was no social distancing, only admonitions to avoid unprotected sex and not share needles when shooting up.

Fauci was there, front and center, but he wasn't telling us to wear two condoms at once. Instead, he was pimping a toxic concoction known as AZT.

Right off the bat, nothing made sense about the AIDs charade. It does make sense in hindsight if you view it as a giant test run, an exercise in spreading 'virus' hysteria. The HIV/AIDS charade confirmed most people don't ask questions, and those who do can be quickly shouted over and marginalized as "deniers," "conspiracists" and menaces to society. It also confirmed that not only could people be convinced to take toxic drugs in response to an overblown 'pandemic' scare, but they could be manipulated into rabidly demanding their expedited release.

It was an exercise whose lessons would prove valuable come December 2019.

AIDS stands for "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome." In other words, you somehow "acquired" an immune system that, like a tired car engine with 300,000 km on the clock, was about to blow its last gasket.

It was first identified in 1981 in Los Angeles when the CDC reported on five young homosexual men suffering pneumonia caused by a protozoon known as Pneumocystis carinii.

This microbe is ordinarily innocuous and, in fact, found in nearly all healthy persons. For reasons unknown it had suddenly become lethal - an outcome previously seen only in persons whose immune systems were being undermined by immunosuppressant therapy, cancer, or severe malnourishment.

This same pneumonia promptly appeared in New York, together with several dozen cases of an unusual skin cancer called Kaposi's Sarcoma which had previously been almost unknown in the US.

Eventually Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's Sarcoma were interpreted as secondary manifestations of an underlying immune-system deficiency of unknown origin which was eventually dubbed "acquired immunodeficiency disease syndrome" or AIDS.

The bodies of AIDS patients seemed to have just given up. Patients suffered severe weight loss and lethargy and were so immune deficient that even a minor infection threatened to kill them.

The first few thousand cases were found mostly in homosexual males, and the media bombarded us with images of emaciated gay blokes on the verge of death and barely able to sit upright. Initially, the condition was referred to as GRID (gay-related immune deficiency). Outside of scientific circles, it came to be known as the "gay plague" and religious fundamentalists trumpeted the phenomenon as God's revenge on evil sodomites.

That began to change in 1983, when AIDS was found to affect heterosexual women, which caused the fear porn to increase by an order of magnitude. As with COVID, health authorities treated us to an orgy of fearmongering and doomsday predictions - and the sheeple lapped it up.

In 1986, Dr. Donald Ian Macdonald, then Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, described "the escalating AIDS epidemic" as "staggering," "devastating" and a "huge problem."

Dr. Halfdan Mahler, Danish physician and head of the World Health Organization, called AIDS "a health disaster of pandemic proportions" and said he could "not imagine a worse health problem in this century."

"We stand nakedly in front of a very serious pandemic as mortal as any pandemic there ever has been," Mahler bizarrely quipped. Why he would don his birthday suit instead of a Hazmat one in the face of such a mortal pandemic was never explained, but that's globalist bureaucrats for you.

"I don't know of any greater killer than AIDS, not to speak of its psychological, social and economic maiming," continued Mahler, who after leaving WHO became director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Not to be outdone, in 1987 Harvard biology professor Stephen Jay Gould said AIDS was "potentially, the greatest natural tragedy in human history." He warned "AIDS may run through the entire population, and may carry off a quarter or more of us" (in 1987, the world population was just over 5 billion; it now stands at over 8 billion).

That same year, Gallup asked an open-ended question about what Americans saw as the most urgent health problem facing the US. Despite the fact AIDS has never even come close to being the leading cause of death in the US, more than two-thirds of Americans said AIDS. The disease continued as the top pick until 2000.

According to Gallup polls conducted in 1987, most Americans (60%) agreed people with AIDS should be made to carry a card noting they had the disease, and one in three (33%) agreed employers should be allowed to fire employees who had AIDS. Twenty-one percent of Americans said people with AIDS should be isolated from the rest of society.

An earlier LA Times poll from 1985 found more than half of US adults supported quarantining AIDS patients, nearly half would approve of ID cards for those testing positive for "AIDS antibodies," and one in seven favored tattooing those with the disease.

People never learn.

A Disease Looking For a Cause

Authorities had presented us with a new public health scare, but no causal agent. No-one knew what caused the immune systems of AIDS patients to become so deficient.

Was it a new microbe? A new drug scourge? God's revenge for Abba and Disco Duck?

No-one knew.

At least officially.

In reality, authorities knew damn well what was going on.

But they didn’t tell us. Instead, they eventually claimed AIDS was the result of a 'novel virus' that, in 1986, was named "human immunodeficiency virus,” or HIV.

The 'novel virus' paradigm holds that a 'zoonotic' virus wakes up one day, and decides to "jump" from apes/bats/pangolins/garden gnomes to humans. This novel virus then acts like a seventeen year old that has been given the keys to an alcohol-filled mansion while mom and dad head off for a weekend vacation. However, the virus has no friends to party with. So he first has to convert to a 'human' form of the virus, then he has to begin self-replicating in order to build a social circle. Once this is done, the virions party so hard that the host becomes sick. The virions conclude their current host is no fun, so they go looking for a new host to party inside. The process repeats itself, and before you know it, there's a 'pandemic' going on with squillions of little virions pogo-dancing in global synchrony and chanting "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!!" while trashing everything in sight.

Viruses these days, sheesh.

Setting aside the glaring fallacies of the virus 'isolation' charade, the 'novel virus = pandemic’ theory is an inherent load of cobblers.

Outbreaks of what look to be infectious illnesses don't just happen for no reason. There has to be some facilitating factor.

AIDS became a big thing in the early 1980s, and we know that initially, the majority of patients were gay males. African-Americans were also known to be at increased risk.

Even if butt sex is an especially efficient method of transmitting STDs, it doesn't explain why AIDS became a phenomenon in the 1980s. After all, both sodomy and homosexuality have been around as long as humans have. Heck, even apes have been observed taking rides on the Hershey Highway.

Which begs the question: What other events with the potential for dire impact on health occurred around the same time as the AIDS outbreak?

The Other Crack Rears Its Ugly Head

Thanks in no small part to Uncle Sam and his ability to conveniently look the other way when it suits his financial and geopolitical interests*, the early 1980s saw a massive flood of cocaine into the US, with urban black neighborhoods the worst afflicted.

So plentiful was the supply of cocaine, drug dealers came up with a way to make it even cheaper and more addictive in order to expand their customer base.

Freebase is the name given to the original form of smokable coke, which resulted in a more intense high than snorting. While this constituted an obvious selling point, the process for making freebase required ether, making it notoriously volatile and dangerous to produce. In a famed 1980 incident, comedian Richard Pryor suffered severe and life-threatening burns after mixing cocaine with ether at his home; the mixture promptly exploded in his face.

Freebase cocaine seems to have first surfaced in the US in the mid-1970s. Around 1980, a less volatile but similar process was developed by dealers in which cocaine was dissolved in a solution of water and baking soda and then dried out into "crack rocks." As the rocks are heated, it makes a crackling sound, hence the name.

As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean. Its use quickly spread to other major US cities, and by 1987, crack was reportedly available in DC and all but four states in the Union.

"In some major cities, such as New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia, one dosage unit of crack could be obtained for as little as $2.50," writes the US DEA. "Never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity."

The crack epidemic dramatically increased the number of Americans addicted to cocaine, as well as the number of cocaine-related hospital emergencies. In 1985, cocaine-related hospital emergencies rose by 12 percent, from 23,500 to 26,300. In 1986, these incidents increased 110 percent, from 26,300 to 55,200.

The crack cocaine explosion, you'll notice, overlaps neatly with the AIDS "explosion."

The House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control held cocaine hearings in July, October, and November 1980. Dr. Robert Byck, who along with his colleagues conducted the first scientific studies of cocaine plasma levels after coca paste smoking, testified at the hearings. He warned that the heavy use of smokable freebase cocaine, employed by an estimated 10 percent of cocaine users, was about to change. He warned Congress that the US was about to experience the worst epidemic of drug abuse the country had ever seen. Byck predicted the use of smoked cocaine in the 1980s would match the widespread use of "speed" (methamphetamine) in the 1960s. He urged Congress and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to mount an education and prevention campaign to avert this impending epidemic.

No such campaign was undertaken.

"The emergence of crack cocaine use in the United States during the mid-1980s was one of the most significant public health problems of that era," note Watkins et al in a 1998 paper. "Crack use contributed to a series of sexually transmitted disease epidemics, to epidemic increases in violent injuries and homicides, and to significant increases in the incidence and prevalence of cocaine addiction. Despite these threats to health and safety, a national public health campaign to counter crack-related morbidity and mortality was never mounted."

Is that because authorities were already committed to carrying out a manufactured 'HIV' crisis?

Crack, Risky Sex, and 'HIV'

A 1994 NEJM article reported an analysis of 1,967 people recruited from inner-city neighborhoods in New York, Miami, and San Francisco. All respondents reported never having injected drugs, however 1,137 were regular smokers of crack. The remaining 830 people reported never having smoked crack.

The results for crack users weren't pretty.

Female crack users were 4.1 times more likely to have been raped, and 1.6 times more likely to have had their first vaginal or anal sex encounter before 13 years of age.

Both male and female crack users reported a higher number of sexual partners than non-users; in the case of women, crack users were 11 times more likely to have had 50 or more sexual partners.

Crack-smoking women were 13.5 times more likely than nonsmoking women to have engaged in sexual work at any time, and 28.8 times more likely to have engaged in recent, unprotected sex work.

Male crack smokers, meanwhile, were 3.4 times more likely to report ever having homosexual anal sex, and 23 times more likely to have had 50 or more male anal sex partners.

Clearly, crack users were significantly more likely to engage in prostitution and risky sexual practices.

Not surprising then, that female and male crack users had higher historical rates of syphilis (3.5 and 2.2, respectively) and gonorrhea (1.8 and 1.6, respectively).

When the researchers ran blood tests for current infection, female and male crack users were significantly more likely to test positive for syphilis (2.8 and 1.6, respectively).

Among the participants in New York and Miami, HIV 'infection' was 2.3 times more prevalent among crack smokers than among nonsmokers (prevalence of HIV antibodies among participants recruited in San Francisco was low).

Testing positive for ‘HIV antibodies’ was strongly associated with previous or current infection with other STDs.

A positive reactive syphilis test (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3) and a history of herpes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.6) remained significantly associated with HIV infection after adjustment for high-risk sexual practices and African-American race.

Other studies found similar results.

Chiasson and colleagues at the New York City Department of Health examined the link between HIV infection and crack use. Examining patients at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, they found that, among women with no other identified risk (i.e., no injectible drug use), crack use, prostitution, crack-using prostitution and history of syphilis were all found to be risk factors for HIV infection. Among men with no other risk behavior, a history of syphilis was in fact the strongest predictor of HIV infection - greater than crack use and contact with prostitutes.

In a 1990 paper, Greenspan and Castro note "between 1981 and 1983, the incidence of primary and secondary syphilis in the United States increased 34%, reaching a rate in 1989 (18.4 cases per 100,000 persons) that was higher than at any time since 1949. Between 1985 and 1989, incidence among blacks more than doubled, from 52.5 to 121.8 cases per 100,000; the increase was greater for black women than for black men (176% versus 106%). These trends are markers for the same high-risk sexual practices that promote transmission of HIV."

So crack, syphilis and ‘HIV’ are closely related. Now let's look at another class of drugs showing a close correlation with pre-existing STDs and ‘HIV.’

The Popper Phenomenon

“Poppers” is a slang term for nitrite inhalant drugs (when they were first manufactured, they came in small ampoules that were 'popped' to release fumes). Amyl nitrite was originally developed to treat angina pectoris by dilating blood vessels, allowing the heart to get more oxygen and thereby relieving the pain.

Arteries are not the only thing poppers help to dilate. Inhaling nitrites relaxes smooth muscles throughout the body - including the sphincter muscles, making it particularly helpful to gay posteriors. Along with facilitating anal sex, the blood vessel-dilating effects of poppers can produce a brief but intense sensation of heat and euphoria lasting 1 or 2 minutes.

The story of poppers is an interesting one, involving US Vietnam vets, a profiteering Big Pharma and an enabling FDA, a gay medical student and organized criminals.

The latter two entities sidestepped an eventual prescription requirement for amyl nitrite by creating butyl and isobutyl nitrite - less pure, more toxic, and even faster-acting versions than the original. Further restrictions were averted thanks to an unwritten agreement between producers and the FDA that poppers were only to be advertised in gay-oriented publications, as 'room deodorizers.'

During the 1970s and early 80s, poppers were advertised heavily in the gay press, and the drugs became an integral part of gay culture. Not only was it routine for patrons at gay nightclubs to freely pass the vials around, some "disco clubs would even add to the general euphoria by occasionally spraying the dance floor with poppers fumes."

"The miasma of nitrite fumes was taken for granted at gay gathering places: bars, baths, leather clubs," writes John Lauritsen in a 1994 New York Native article. "Some gay men were never without their little bottle, from which they snorted fumes around the clock."

Throwing caution to the wind when it comes to drugs never ends well. Amyl nitrite was developed for occasional use by angina patients, not as a party drug to be snorted every time one hit the dance floor or engaged in a bout of Jolly Rogering.

Apart from causing localized damage to nasal membranes, poppers have been linked to anemia, strokes, heart, lung, and brain damage, cardiovascular collapse, and, tellingly, the blood de-oxygenation, thymus atrophy, chronic depletion of T-cell ratios associated with severe immune dysfunction. The drugs have also been linked to the development of Kaposi's Sarcoma.

Sounds a lot like AIDS, doesn't it?

While researchers and the more level-headed of gay advocates warned of the dangers, the FDA continued to look the other way. The gay press, whose advertising revenue relied heavily on popper ads, also willfully turned a blind eye to the dangers.

In the 1980s, in a lukewarm attempt to be seen to be doing something about the problem, US health officials banned the use of poppers in public places and required merchants to post warnings about their dangers. "The warnings about their use disappeared sometime in the late '80s to early '90s," reports SFGATE, "and no one seems to know why."

"During the first few years of the AIDS epidemic," writes Ian Young at VirusMyth.org, "poppers came under suspicion as a possible contributing factor. But after 1984, when the Reagan administration pronounced a single retrovirus to be the only cause of the growing list of AIDS illnesses, the health hazards of poppers were dismissed. All attention and funding was directed to HIV."

Fun fact: Burroughs Wellcome, the original manufacturers of poppers, went on to profit handsomely from the subsequent AIDS hysteria with its highly-toxic 'anti-AIDS' drug AZT.

History is Made (Up)

There were major drug scourges afflicting the high-risk gay and African-American communities, drugs whose chronologies overlapped neatly with the AIDS outbreak. Use and abuse of these drugs was well established to cause severe illness, immune dysfunction and was also strongly correlated with pre-existing STDs like syphilis.

The powers-that-be, however, had already decided the sole cause of AIDs was a 'novel virus.' They just needed to come up with one.

And so along came the virologists to save the day. Not just any old bunch of virologists, but virologists with friends in high places. In France, this meant Luc Montagnier and his team at the Pasteur Institute, which advises the French government and the World Health Organization (WHO), and maintains a close collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In the US, it meant sci-bureaucrats from the government's behemoth National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of the key figures was the caustic Robert S Gallo, a researcher at the NIH's National Cancer Institute, where he worked for 30 years mainly as head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology. Gallo’s career would be dogged by controversy and misconduct allegations, but that’s a whole other article (stay tuned).

The other career bureaucrat that would play a key role on the US side was none other than Anthony S Fauci, who recently completed a ridiculous 38-year reign as unelected head of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

If you've surmised that, with names like the above, the HIV story must be a real shite show, you are absolutely correct.

HIV is Invented 'Discovered'

In 1983, the Pasteur Institute researchers declared they had 'isolated' a 'retrovirus' belonging to the family of T-cell leukemia viruses (HTLV), and concluded it "may be involved in several pathological syndromes, including AIDS." (Bold emphasis added)

Their isolate came from a promiscuous 33-year-old Caucasian homosexual male referred to as "BRU", who indicated he'd had more than 50 sexual partners per year. Nasty. According to the authors, he displayed "signs and symptoms that often precede the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." However, the only symptoms reported for the patient were multiple lymphadenopathies (swollen lymph glands) and asthenia (weakness), which are evident in many conditions aside from AIDS. Neither fever nor recent loss of weight were noted.

In other words, the patient from whom the alleged AIDS-causing virus was first 'isolated' from did not have an AIDS diagnosis.

Tellingly, the patient did have a history of several episodes of gonorrhea and had been treated for syphilis in September 1982. Lymphadenopathy is one of the symptoms of both the aforementioned infections.

The study's lead author was Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, although the finding is routinely credited to the paper's last listed author, the late Montagnier.

The French study was marred by two key problems. It did not isolate any virus, and it did not show AIDS was caused by any HTLV offshoot.

Forty years later, little has changed. The terminology and rationalizations have indeed become increasingly complex (as is the case with most elaborate lies), but there is no physical isolate of 'HIV.'

Virologists and their sycophants, of course, insist this doesn't matter and that their non-purified mixtures are indeed isolates.

While they condescendingly sneer and dismiss anyone who disputes this as a silly little dumb-dumb that doesn't 'understand' virology, they tend to remain rather quiet on another highly inconvenient observation.

Namely, there is no proof that whatever is in their ‘isolates’ actually causes AIDS.

HIV and Sars-Cov-2: The 'Deadly' Viruses That Aren't Deadly

In the early days of 'COVID', testing positive for the mythical Sars-Cov-2 was considered a death sentence. So much so, that some folks didn't even bother getting their affairs in order; they instead killed themselves.

Such is the power of all this heinous "deadly virus" bullshit.

It was the same in the 'HIV' Dark Ages - testing positive was considered a death sentence. When a famous basketballer by the name of Erving “Magic” Johnson announced he was HIV positive in 1991, everyone was shocked. "Now we all know someone with HIV," said someone I can't recall in what was supposed to be a profound, insight-triggering moment.

Johnson, everyone assumed, was now living on borrowed time.

Thirty-three years later, Johnson is still alive and wealthy. He attributes his survival to antiretroviral cocktails that have never been shown in clinical studies to benefit survival: GlaxoSmithKline's Trizivir and Abbott's Kaletra. These cocktails are comprised of drugs like AZT which increase the risk of side effects but have never been shown to exert a mortality benefit.

Johnson, it should be noted, has featured in ads for both products. In 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Abbott Laboratories regarding a promotional DVD in which Johnson discussed his experiences with Kaletra. The letter stated the violations were of public health concern "because they suggest that Kaletra is safer and more effective than has been demonstrated by substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience, and encourage use in circumstances other than those for which the drug has been shown to be safe and effective."

"FDA is not aware of substantial evidence or substantial clinical experience to support effectiveness for five or more years of treatment with Kaletra in treatment-experienced adults. The personal experience of Kaletra patients, such as Magic Johnson, does not constitute such evidence."

So if overpriced drug cocktails aren't keeping Johnson alive, what explains his survival?

It's explained by the fact that HIV is a load of bollocks. A shady test that claims you are ‘HIV positive’ does not mean you are in fact harboring a deadly 'virus.'

If ‘HIV’ was so deadly, then lab animals infected with it would get sick and die.

But guess what? Administering a so-called isolate of uber-deadly HIV to animals results in ... nothing.

Stugatz.

That's right - directly administering The Virus That Causes AIDS™ to animals does not cause AIDS.

"The only animals susceptible to experimental HIV-1** infection are the chimpanzee, gibbon ape, and rabbit but AIDS-like disease has not yet been reported in these species," lamented the authors of a 1989 FASEB paper.

Oops.

I'm guessing those chimps, gibbons and wascawwy wabbits didn't have a history of syphilis, smoking crack or inhaling poppers.

Experiments in which human volunteers are deliberately 'infected' with the 'HIV isolate' would never get past the ethics committees of most research institutions.

We do, however, have numerous instances of involuntary infection to give us a guide as to what happens when otherwise low-risk individuals are exposed to 'HIV.'

In a 1984 NEJM letter, before 'HIV' testing became available, Sloan Kettering researchers reported there had been 27 parenteral exposures by 25 staff to the blood of AIDS patients since August 1982 (24 exposures were via needlestick).

"All the involved staff are in their usual (generally excellent) state of health," including those who were exposed more than 12 months ago. Blood work was available for 12 staff with exposure more than 6 months prior, and no abnormalities were evident, reported the researchers.

During 1985–2013, 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of occupationally acquired HIV infection among healthcare workers were reported to the CDC. Since 1999, only one confirmed case (a laboratory technician sustaining a needle puncture while working with a live HIV culture in 2008) has been reported. There is no mention of subsequent AIDS, something the fear-porn agents at the CDC would surely have mentioned had it occurred.

Some of you have probably heard of Dr Robert Willner, who twice deliberately pricked himself on TV with blood from 'HIV-positive' men (in Spain 1993, and USA 1994). Willner was an outspoken critic of the HIV hypothesis, having authored a book titled Deadly Deception: The Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause AIDS. Depending on who you listen to, Willner died 3 months after his 1994 TV appearance in a car crash, or the following year from a heart attack. Neither outcome is consistent with the oft-cited sequelae of AIDS.

Jump, Jump, Jump Around

Despite the fact that it is scientifically untenable, the HIV theory of AIDS still reigns supreme. Which brings us back to the key question: Why did 'HIV' wait until Wham! and Devine hit the charts before it started striking down gay blokes en mass?

Enter the apes.

According to Wikipedia, "HIV made the jump from other primates to humans in west-central Africa in the early-to-mid-20th century." (Bold emphasis added)

Just like Sars-Cov-2 was purported to have kicked off when the allegedly zoonotic virus "jumped" to humans from a bat or pangolin at a Wuhan wet market that did not sell any bats or pangolins.

Says Wikipedia, "Scientists generally accept that the known strains (or groups) of HIV-1 are most closely related to the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) endemic in wild ape populations of West Central African forests." (Bold emphasis added).

"Generally accept" is code for "Scientists have no proof of this, but pretend it's true anyway."

This brings us to an oft-cited 2011 paper titled "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic" which repeats the claim that "simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) ... crossed from monkeys to apes and from apes to humans." The paper was authored by Paul Sharp and Beatrice Hahn, the latter a member of Gallo's NCI lab team which she joined in 1982.

A chimpanzee minding his own business while a Gallo associate who blames apes for spreading HIV to humans (Beatrice Hahn) stares at him from a distance.

In their paper, the researchers provide a graphic claiming SIV resulting in HIV-1 has been transmitted to humans via chimpanzees and gorillas.

Hold that thought.

According to the official narrative, the primary routes of 'HIV' transmission in humans are sexual intercourse with an infected individual, sharing needles with an infected person while taking drugs, transfusions of infected blood, or transmission from an infected pregnant mother to fetus.

Sharp and Hahn speculate that SIVs first developed in chimpanzees, and were spread among the chimpanzee community primarily through sexual activity, from infected mothers to infants, and "in rare cases, possibly by aggression."

But how did the disease "jump" from apes to humans? Researchers can't claim humans and apes were shooting up drugs together and sharing needles while doing so, or that apes were administering blood transfusions to humans, because that would be patently absurd.

Ditto for suggesting apes were passing SIV to humans via birth, because apes don't give birth to humans.

Claiming that apes transmitted SIV to humans because they were having cross-species sexual encounters would also be a hard sell. Humans are capable of some pretty weird and degenerate behaviour, but good luck pinning down a chimp or gorilla while you attempt to get jiggy with it.

Meet Bruce. Can bench press you and your extended family with one arm. Incursions into his personal space not advised.

"How humans acquired the ape precursors of HIV-1 groups M, N, O, and P is not known," write Sharp and Hahn, "however, based on the biology of these viruses, transmission must have occurred through cutaneous or mucous membrane exposure to infected ape blood and/or body fluids. Such exposures occur most commonly in the context of bushmeat hunting." (Bold emphasis added).

Researchers can't explain exactly how immunodeficiency viruses pole-vaulted from apes to human, so they simply assume it must have happened during hunting expeditions.

Virologists do a lot of assuming.

Sharp and Hahn write that the first clue to HIV-1's "sudden emergence, epidemic spread, and unique pathogenicity" came in 1986 when a “morphologically similar but anti-genically distinct” virus was allegedly found to cause AIDS in patients in western Africa.

Well riddle me this, Batman: Humans have been around for 2.5 million years, and the earliest Homo sapiens were getting around some 300,000 years ago.

We've been hunting that whole time.

Furthermore, the advance of agriculture and the steadily declining numbers of hunter-gatherers in modern times would have meant a greatly reduced opportunity for SIV to jump aboard the H-train via scratchy-bitey-fluid-exchangey hunting confrontations.

Yet immunodeficiency viruses waited until the latter half of the Twentieth Century to successfully make the big cross-species jump?

What an utter crock.

Wikipedia admits "How the SIV virus would have transformed into HIV after infection of the hunter or bushmeat handler from the ape/monkey is still a matter of debate."

Translated: There is no actual scientific evidence to support the claim that, after allegedly entering the human body, ‘SIV’ magically transformed into ‘HIV.’

The Sodomy Paradox

There's another problem with the official AIDS narrative which holds that, after catching SIV from apes during hunting mishaps in Africa, it "transformed" into HIV, which hunter-gatherers then spread by doing the backdoor boogie with gay abandon.

That story further holds that, somewhere along the way, one of these HIV-carrying ape-hunters nailed a gay airline steward from America. Patient Zero then flew back to the US, and began having lots of AIDS-causing unprotected sex in the saunas of San Francisco. Or the gay bars of New York. Or the wet markets of Wisconsin, I'm not sure, all this virus BS gets a bit hard to keep track of after a while.

It doesn't really matter, because like the rest of the AIDS tale, the gay airline steward story was nonsense. Gaetan Dugas, the French-Canadian flight attendant posthumously labelled 'Patient Zero' and accused of single-handedly igniting the spread of HIV/AIDS across North America, was later exonerated.

Thanks to the determined sleuthing of Pullitzer Prize-winning reporter John Crewdson, it was known by 1988 that what we now call AIDS was in fact present in America in the 1960s. While the rest of the media was tripping over itself to blame Dugas (“THE MAN WHO GAVE US AIDS” blared the New York Post’s October 6, 1987 headline; “Canadian Said to Have Had Key Role in Spread of AIDS,” wrote the New York Times, while the National Review nicknamed Dugas “the Columbus of AIDS"), Crewdson had discovered a 1973 case report that showed the official Patient Zero story was bollocks.

That 1973 case report described Robert Rayford, a 15-year-old black lad from St. Louis who had died of AIDS in 1969 - more than a decade before anyone knew what AIDS was. The impoverished teen had presented to hospital in the spring of 1968 with swollen loins covered with open, infected sores. He struggled while breathing, was razor thin and pale as a ghost. Doctors initially suspected cancer, but subsequent tests revealed herpes, genital warts, and a severe case of chlamydia. The infection spread, in the form of purple colored lesions, to his legs, causing a misdiagnosis of lymphedema. He eventually succumbed to his condition in May 1969, leaving doctors baffled.

The teen, who doctors described as mildly intellectually impaired, said he'd suffered the symptoms for around two years prior to seeking medical help. He denied injury or animal bites, had not travelled outside the midwestern United States, but admitted to "frequent" heterosexual intercourse. His family consented to an autopsy, which revealed "widespread Kaposi's sarcoma of the aggressive, disseminated type." The autopsy also found evidence of anal scarring and a particular kind of lesion no one had identified when Rayford was alive. Some doctors thought the scarring indicated Rayford was gay; others pointed out he may have been sexually abused.

Struck by how closely Rayford's symptoms resembled those of AIDS, Crewdson flew to St. Louis and found a pathologist willing to dig through laboratory freezers in search of the youth's tissue samples. By using the test 'co-developed' by Gallo and the French, researchers were able to determine that the boy, incredibly, had been infected with 'HIV.'

The finding was published in JAMA in 1988. However, it was not until 2016 that the fake Dugas tale was officially revoked.

Had the Rayford story been more widely known, it wouldn’t have been good for HIV business.

Not to worry, the out-of-Africa hypothesis was salvaged in 1998 when researchers claimed they had detected HIV - by a PCR process involving two rounds of amplification for a combined total of 69 cycles - in a plasma sample obtained in early 1959 from an adult Bantu male, with a sickle-cell trait and a glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency, living in the Belgian Congo. Two of the researchers announcing this narrative-saving discovery hailed from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, at Rockefeller University in New York.

So just like the COVID charade, we have a shamdemic for which the original Patient Zero story was shown to be a bunch of cobblers. Just like the COVID sham, few people noticed or cared and the rest of the AIDS tale continued its relentless march and took on a life of its own.

Despite more holes than a ... wait, that's dangerous pun territory ... I mean, despite a plethora of discrepancies, the official Fauci-endorsed tale still has HIV migrating from Africa to the US and spread in the early 1980s by blokes bumping uglies in big city gay bars and saunas.

And Fauci should know, because he went to gay saunas and gay bars himself in the “early stages” of the AIDS “explosion” to get a “feel” for the situation.

Purely for ‘research’ purposes, of course (wink, wink).

It's okay Tony, it's 2024, you don't have to cover for your sexuality anymore.

A young Anthony Fauci displaying his "I've just been to the saunas!" smile. Your tax money at work.

You could literally fill a book with all the discrepancies contained within the official AIDS story; several authors have already done just that. What I wanted to highlight here are the commonalities between the AIDS and COVID sagas.

Both featured never-isolated 'viruses' with nonsensical 'Patient Zero' stories.

‘Isolates’ of both these ‘deadly’ and ‘novel’ viruses do a whole lot of nothing when administered to our primate cousins.

Both sagas featured Anthony Fauci, showing up on cue touting the most toxic drug he could get away with recommending.

Both featured doomsday, end-of-times hyperbole in which testing 'positive' was initially considered a death sentence.

Both were remarkable demonstrations of how the media and masses could be easily manipulated into accepting a pandemic scare that, upon the most cursory examination, simply didn't add up.

---

*During the presidency of former actor Ronald Reagan, senior administration officials secretly — and illegally — arranged for the sale of arms to Iran in return for Iran’s promise to help secure the release of a group of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon.

Suspiciously, the hostages were formally released into US custody just minutes after Reagan was sworn into office.

Proceeds from the arms sales were then secretly, and again illegally, funneled to the Contras, a group of rebels fighting the Marxist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

Is if that wasn't bad enough, the CIA looked the other way while the Contras trafficked cocaine into the US to help finance their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas. The scandal was exposed in 1996 by the brilliant, Pullitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb while writing for the San Jose Mercury News. His series described a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring that sold tons of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, funelling millions in drug profits to the CIA-assisted Contras. This drug ring "opened the first pipeline between Colombia's cocaine cartels and the black neighborhoods of Los Angeles" and, as a result, "helped spark a crack explosion in urban America."

His articles caused a proverbial shit-storm, prompting the government to conduct several investigations into itself and declaring itself innocent of all charges. We were supposed to believe it was all just an accidental oversight when even the Kerry report acknowledged "the Contra drug links included", among other connections, "... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." (Bold emphasis added).

The Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Washington Post launched their own 'investigations' (read: hatchet jobs) and rejected Webb's allegations, instead siding with the government - a practice they uphold to this day.

However, an internal CIA report released in 1998 admitted the CIA ‘overlooked’ or ‘ignored’ reports that the Nicaragua Contra rebels financed their fight to oust the communist Sandinistas through the sale of drugs in the United States.

**‘HIV-1’ is the form of ‘HIV’ allegedly most common and threatening to humans. According to the official tale, ‘HIV-2’ is rare and of little threat.