The symptoms shown by "Nick" and the autopsy report confirmed that whatever he suffered from quite closely resembled Black Plague. Among the diseases searched for by the autopsy were those common to gays with many sex partners: urethritis, shigella, amebiasis, scabies, hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea. None of these were found in "Nick's" body. Nor was there any trace of lymphogranuloma vencerum, a tropical disease found among homosexuals who had traveled to Haiti and Africa.

After "Nick's" death, reports began appearing in the American press about this strange new disease. On May 11, 1982, the New York Times carried a major story about a "new homosexual disorder," which it called "Gay Related Immunodeficiency" (GRID). (The disease was later given the name AIDS by Don Armstrong, chief of infectious diseases at the Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and first officially used in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published in the fall of 1982 by the Centers for Disease Control.) But then came a sudden explosion of AIDS cases. The Haitian connection could not come close to squaring up with the big numbers being reported. The answer to how that could happen was known only to a few. While Fort Detrick had researched animal-human viruses, the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico had been given the task of finding out just how much faster the animal-RNA virus mutated in relation to human (natural) viruses. An intelligence report on the Los Alamos findings was written and then destroyed but not before one copy was secreted out. The results: In the first test, using two natural (DNA) viruses, placed side by side in the lab alongside an RNA-infected virus, replication difference in time amounted to less than 1.5 percent at the end of a year between the two natural viruses, or a total difference of under three percent annually. The infected RNAvirus mutated an astonishing 1 million times faster than the two DNA viruses.

The first case was reported in Uganda in 1972, so at the normal rate of replication it would have taken fifteen years to approach 8,000 cases. The doubling time for the numbers of people infected every 14 months in relation to the first reported cases in Africa and Brazil and Haiti proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a very substantial number of people had to have become infected with the AIDS virus, all more or less at the same time. What really happened? Were homosexuals deliberately targeted for AIDS experiments?  (28 of ) Consider this: In 19, a certain Dr. W. Szmuness was admitted to the U.S. by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. A Polish citizen, he was educated in the Soviet Union and had been serving as an advisor to the World Health Organization in Poland. British intelligence suspected him of being a KGB agent. And yet, he was admitted to the U.S. and immediately given the top job at the New York City Blood Bank. Why? In 19, suspected KGB agents were not routinely welcomed into America and given high-level scientific jobs. The Justice Department would know the answer to that question, but they decline comment on Dr. Szmuness.

Once installed at the Blood Bank, Dr. Szmuness set up a major study of a Hepatitis B vaccine.9 But here's the weird part: only sexually active male homosexuals between the ages of twenty and forty were allowed to participate. There was certainly no valid reason why a legitimate vaccine test should be limited to promiscuous young homosexuals. And yet it was. And the introduction of the hepatitis vaccine exhibited the exact symptoms and epidemiology of AIDS. Even chronic intestinal lymphoid pneumonia began appearing in the homosexuals who participated in the Hepatitis B study.

The official version of how AIDS began is not well known or documented.

So it is perhaps worth an overview of how this disaster is supposed to have happened. The prevalent cover story for the spread of the AIDS epidemic is that the source of the virus was the African green monkey. To this day, most people believe that AIDS began with infected monkeys biting people. But it would have taken hundreds of monkeys biting hundreds of people for the epidemic to have broken out in such massive numbers at virtually the same time and continents apart. If the MGM (mythical green monkey) story were true, there might be 20,000 or extravagantly, perhaps 50,000, or maybe even 100,000 cases in Africa, rather than the thirty million known cases by 1992. The MGM story cannot withstand any serious scrutiny. Let us reject that theory out of hand. An exhaustive examination of a colony of green monkeys later revealed no trace of the AIDS virus. The AIDS virus does not occur naturally in the green monkey. According to intelligence information, the HIV virus had previously never occurred in any animals. And it has since been proven that it is genetically  (29 of ) impossible to transfer any virus from green monkey cells to man.

Not to mention that green monkeys don't exist in Brazil and Haiti. Where did the MGM story come from? Perhaps from the fact that polio vaccines were cultured on green monkey kidney cells in the 10s to produce the Salk polio vaccine. But the process went wrong and millions of people were injected with contaminated vaccine containing SV-40.10 Despite the desire to squash the underground rumblings around the world that AIDS is a creation of man, no government, including the U.S. government, has to date offered any persuasive theory or evidence to back it to support the belief that the AIDS epidemic sprang from nature and spread in the fashion it has. Simple logic should tell us this much: If nature was responsible for the AIDS virus and its catastrophic impact, don't you think that the U.S. government with its massive intelligence-gathering apparatus, its nearly limitless scientific facilities and its access to the media would by now know at least some of the answers and present a persuasive case?

Well, it hasn't. Not even close. Could anyone who reads this even answer the question: What does the U. S. government say caused AIDS? A lame theory about the African green monkey is the best they can do and they haven't staked their credibility even on that. It's a question the government would prefer not to answer. Why not? Because they know that no matter what theory they put forth, it's not true and there are too many scientists around the world who would be able to discredit it. So they remain silent and trust that most people will not take the trouble to wonder why. The federal bureaucracy officially responsible for protecting us from epidemics, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, and its staunch ally in the dissemination of disinformation, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) have glossed right over the genesis of AIDS.

Explaining the spread of a disease is quite different than explaining its origin. The CDC and JAMA stayed clear of that treacherous arena. Instead they chose to imply and falsely that AIDS is a sexual disease transmitted primarily by heterosexuals in Africa and homosexuals in the West. The AIDS epidemic began with a mass movement of the population from the country to the cities in Africa, we are told, with a natural increase in sexual activity. "The urbanization of Africa has been accompanied by an increase in heterosexual activity and hyperendemicity gonorrhea," JAMA reported on October 24, 1985, by way of explaining the outbreak of AIDS.

"Aids was then transmitted on a global scale primarily through homosexually mediated behavior as underscored by virtually every epidemiological study available," reported JAMA. "In America this is reflected by 13:1 preponderance of infection in males as opposed to females, an 11:1 ratio in Europe and 26:1 ratio in Australia. Sixty to a hundred percent of the total number of cases in 12 of 16 countries in Europe are in homosexual men. Overall in Europe, 78 percent of cases are in homosexual/bisexual men, and homosexual transmissions combined with IV drug abuse accounts for 87% of European cases, with considerable overlap between the two groups here and in other countries. "In Canada the vast majority of AIDS cases have occurred in homosexual-bisexual men living in the  (30 of ) largest urban areas. Brazil has accounted for the second highest international toll of reported AIDS cases, far and away the highest per capita incidence in Latin America. Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are two of the few places where homosexuality is tolerated and practiced openly, with the immediate result that Brazil's reported AIDS cases are concentrated in the large gay communities of these two cities."

In a report dated October 16, 19, Drs. Curran and Mason of the Centers for Disease Control stated that three in thirty homosexual males between the ages of twenty and fifty were infected with the AIDS virus: "In California, New Jersey, Texas and Florida, the figure was 1 in 9 homosexual males between the ages of 30 and 39. Homosexual transmission accounts for 78 percent of U.S. cases, but this figure increases to 93 percent when combined with drug abusers." Homosexual promiscuity and the unique susceptibility of certain homosexual activities and the gravely unsanitary conditions and urban crowding in African cities were undoubtedly factors in the spread of the virus. But that does not account for the massive outbreaks that occurred in rural tribal areas, which in Kenya, Uganda and Zaire, wiped out the population all age groups of whole villages and towns, where there was much less crowding and sanitary conditions were better.

The AIDS virus in Africa was not caused by increased heterosexual activity; the very idea is preposterous. Why would an increase in heterosexual activity spread an epidemic that was confined to homosexuals and drug abusers in Western countries? But their scapegoat strategy worked. A portrayal emerged in which the blame for AIDS was laid squarely upon African heterosexuals who moved to the city and drug abusers and gay communities in the West. Gays became the whipping boy of the world. This was intended to reassure the general population that if one were not homosexual or an intravenous drug abuser, there was no need to fear infection with the AIDS virus. The media bought the story and passed it on to the public. Witness this account in the Los Angeles Times on August 8, 1987: "In the urban areas of the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Brazil and Mexico, the AIDS virus is usually transmitted through male homosexual contact (or to a considerably lesser degree) by intravenous drug users who share contaminated needles and syringes. There is relatively little heterosexual transmission of AIDS virus in these countries." Totally missing from the CDC and JAMA conclusions is the answer to the most important question: Where had the AIDS virus come from ? Just try to get that answer from them. Like the curate's egg, parts of the CDC information are good, but parts are very bad. Take the reference to Brazil. Certainly Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have a large gay presence, but to imply, as CDC did, that gays in these two cities caused an epidemic of AIDS to sweep Brazil to its furthest corners even remote villages along the Amazon defies logic and common sense. What those remote villages in Brazil and Africa shared in common was not a hedonistic gay lifestyle; what they shared in common was that they'd all been vaccinated against smallpox by the World Health Organization. Here's the truth about the spread of the AIDS epidemic: Following successful experiments conducted against Zaire, AIDS was deliberately introduced into Africa. Because it has the largest black population  (31 of ) outside Africa, Brazil was then targeted.

Then came the Haitian connection to begin the destruction of the homosexual community in America.

The destruction of the homosexual community has created one of the most dangerous myths we face about AIDS: that it is primarily transmitted by sexual contact. AIDS is not an "ordinary" venereal disease; a sort of deadly gonorrhea. AIDS is a blood-borne virus. As Dr. Daniel Benson of UCLA says, "blood is the major avenue of contamination." That simple fact invalidates everything we've been taught to believe about the spread of AIDS. As Dr. John Seale explains: "Scientists and doctors have repeatedly stated as fact that the AIDS virus is fundamentally transmitted during sexual intercourse, but is, unfortunately, sometimes transmitted in blood. This is highly misleading, though published laboratory and epidemiological evidence, and editorials in scientific and medical journals, have been heavily slanted to support this "fact."

"In reality, AIDS is a characteristically blood transmitted infection, which is only transmitted with difficulty during sexual intercourse compared with the genuine sexually transmitted diseases gonorrhea and trichomonosias. All the exceptional epidemiological evidence is consistent with this view. Obviously AIDS is transmittable during sexual intercourse, but so is influenza, glandular fever and scabies. Sexual intercourse is only one of many ways by which the virus can be transmitted, and is by no means the most efficient… "Having assumed for a variety of motives that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease like syphilus or gonorrhea, a negligible research effort has gone into the critical matter of transmission.… As far as it goes, the tiny research effort into infectivity of bodily fluids indicates that saliva is far more infectious than genital secretions, but that blood and serum is vastly more infectious than either. Consequently the idea that condoms can have any significant effect on the spread of AIDS in a nation is utterly preposterous.

Governments all over the world are spending millions of pounds advising their citizens to prevent AIDS by using condoms on the basis of manifestly fraudulent misrepresentation of scientific evidence presented by scientists themselves." No lifestyle is safe enough to guarantee protection from infection. The terrible truth is that the risk for most people who feel safe from the AIDS plague, because they are heterosexual, monogamous, drugfree is far greater than is generally known. Dr. Seale: "People with AIDS are categorized as belonging to a small number of 'risk groups,' giving the false impression that the vast majority of people cannot get AIDS. AIDS is portrayed as only a behavioral disease caused by sexual and narcotic misdemeanors.

This implies that if anybody gets AIDS, it is their own fault. Emphasis on transmission of the virus during sexual intercourse and education as a solution to the epidemic implies that the disease will disappear with  (32 of ) modified behavior. This misses the point that as the epidemic explodes, infection by chance, non-sexual, contact becomes even more common." How many Americans believe that even kissing can spread the virus? Here is what Dr. Marcello Piazza, a world renowned authority on AIDS, published in the Journal of The American Medical Society on January 13, 1989: "It is generally accepted that the presence of blood in saliva is indirect evidence that microlesions are present in the oral cavity. During kissing, two mucosae, both of which may contain microlesions come into close contact. The intense rubbing that occurs during kissing can favor both the creation of microlesions and the passage of blood from one partner to the other.