Déjà Vu All Over Again

The Mythology Of Vaccination

Jun 25, 2024

We have been here many times before. Our most recent visit – prior to Covid – was in the early eighties. Before that, the mid-fifties. We originally discovered this place at the end of the 1700s and were frequent tourists for a century and a half, before undergoing a change of heart and absenting ourselves for fifty years as the claims made on its behalf were increasingly scrutinized and subsequently found wanting. But our rulers and their minions had never fallen out of love with it and were simply biding their time. Even though we were right in stating that this place was never what it claimed to be, we allowed ourselves to be enticed into a return. That was a huge mistake which continues to haunt us.

I'm speaking of Vaccine Land, from its origins with smallpox, through polio, AIDS and now Covid. In each case, the approved version of history is a complete fabrication. The smallpox vaccine is the foundational myth of the entire corpus of vaccinology and is, therefore, held to be proof positive that the concept has validity, but it was a disaster – one that was repeated in various iterations for the best part of 120 years in Britain and even longer elsewhere. The polio vaccine is said to have eradicated the disease in the wild and is similarly lauded, but it did no such thing as the designation 'polio' was simply used to describe a multitude of symptoms that resulted from inadequate regulation of the agro-chemical industry.

Fast forward to the 1980s and the AIDS 'epidemic'. You remember – the disease that was one thing in the 'developed' world and entirely another in Africa. The disease that develops from HIV, except that all the available evidence demonstrates that it doesn't and that HIV is merely a passenger virus that's along for the ride and that AIDS – Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (not Disease) - doesn't actually exist. However, if anything, that assertion reveals one of the least outrageous misdirections in that particular saga. Then, four decades later, we have the most recent scamdemic.

There are a good number of common denominators linking the latter three 'epidemics'. For instance, all of the 'diseases' were partly or wholly fabricated; none were infectious as claimed; the state deployed scare tactics that were unwarranted; in each case a 'vaccine' (or, in the case of AIDS, various prophylactics) was (were) rushed into production and, every time, it was then that the real damage was done. And Big Pharma got rich, while the vaccinated got sick.

The history of vaccinology is a four act play, in equal parts absent and with a culture of inoculation. Prior to 1796, there was no such thing as a vaccine, although there had been various attempts at variolation, whereby puss from an individual infected with smallpox (variola major) had been used in an attempt to immunize others. This approach was demonstrably dunderheaded; while those who survived gained immunity, many died and the disease proliferated. As a result of this approach, deaths from smallpox had increased by 50% come the end of the century. Clearly, a different approach was required.

Figure 1

Dr Edward Jenner hypothesized that as milkmaids did not contract smallpox, there must be some kind of immunizing effect provided by the cowpox (variola vaccinia) that they were exposed to.(1) He then experimented by inoculating children with cowpox and discovered that, when he later exposed them to smallpox via variolation, they too were immune. As an aside, it's perhaps difficult for us to envisage what parent would allow their child to undergo a trial with such an uncertain prognosis, but poor, orphaned children were used extensively in the early nineteenth century, often as primary vectors for transmitting the vaccine.(2)

The official history holds that, despite official obduracy, Jenner's energetic promotion of his new treatment garnered support from the 'enlightened' and thousands were vaccinated in Great Britain. In short order, the likes of Bavaria, Denmark and Sweden made childhood vaccination mandatory and were followed, eventually, by the English. A mythology rapidly took hold – vaccination was 'safe and effective' and the death toll from smallpox dropped precipitously across Europe. Dramatic proof of its efficacy was provided by the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71):

“If anyone doubts this, the experience of the Franco-Prussian War, fought in the middle of a Europe-wide smallpox pandemic, provides conclusive proof: the Prussian army, virtually all of whose soldiers had been vaccinated, proved highly resistant to the disease, while the French recruits, often drawn from benighted Catholic families skeptical of the vaccine, fell like flies.”(3)

You will, no doubt, have noticed an anomaly in that quote – if vaccination was so effective, why had there been another epidemic? In fact, there were further epidemics in the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s, but these were simply taken as proving the necessity of re-vaccination. Ye olde booster shot. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? The medical establishment simply inferred causation, when there was only ever correlation, because much of 'evidence' undergirding the safe and effective mantra was, at best, questionable and capable of other interpretations or, at worst, a collection of outright falsehoods. And there were plenty of doctors willing to say so in the early days. One such did not mince his words:

“…the practice of vaccination is absurd, superfluous, and worse than useless. But as, in numerous instances, death has happened from small-pox after cow-pox; and as cow-pox produces other diseases, of which many cases have terminated in death; the practice is directly, positively, and extremely pernicious to society. And, as having been the medium of defrauding the public probably of millions of money...”(4)

For starters, the Franco-Prussian war analogy does not stand up to scrutiny. Heavily vaccinated Prussia was the country hardest hit country in Europe with 69,000 deaths and, while there was no compulsory vaccination in France, all soldiers were vaccinated upon enrollment and promptly got sick.(5) And compulsory vaccination was far from being the panacea that it's supporters claimed. Throughout the Western world, epidemics were more problematic in highly vaccinated countries.

Figure 2

In Bavaria, in 1871, nearly 96% of smallpox cases were in vaccinated individuals (29,429 out of 30,742)(6) and, in total, between 1870 and 1875, a million of the vaccinated perished from smallpox.(7) Italian epidemics of the 1890s produced 18,110 rural deaths – an unprecedented number,(8) despite the fact that they had been dosing themselves with the vaccine twice a year for decades. Japan vaccinated 25 million people between 1885 and 1892, yet still registered 156,175 cases and 39,979 deaths. Doubling down with a mandatory vaccination law only made matters worse – twice as bad as the pre-vaccination period.(9) But, as we now know to our cost, once a myth has become accepted fact, it's difficult to shake it off regardless of the facts on the ground. Even victims' families were complicit in failing to report deaths due to an allegiance to the narrative.

England, by virtue of its initial enthusiasm and eventual disillusionment, became the control group. By 1871, four Acts of Parliament had combined to make vaccination compulsory. However, the subsequent 1871/72 epidemic prompted a rethink, especially amongst parents, who could not see the logic behind risking their children's health by vaccination when they were likely to die in the next epidemic anyway. Anti-vaxxers in Leicester were particularly voluble and non-compliance spread rapidly fueled by their experience of yet another epidemic in 1892-94. The city suffered

“...only 357 cases, or 20.5 per 10,000, occurred in Leicester as compared to 125.3 and 144.2 per 10,000 in the well-vaccinated towns of Warrington and Sheffield, respectively. The fatality rate in Leicester was also low, at only 21 deaths, or 5.8 percent.”(10)

The vaccines were a disaster. Everywhere. And it wasn't as if they were quality assured. 'Vaccine' was an umbrella term, as blood and pus from a variety of animals – including horses, goats, donkeys and buffaloes – were used, as was material from human corpses. 'Safe and effective' was as much a propagandist's watchword then as it is now.(11) The entire process was ad-hoc and wantonly hazardous.

Correlation, such as it was, favored a finding that vaccination improved one's odds of dying, not surviving. Any gradual improvement in outcomes over the course of the century could not be chalked up to the jab. We know this because we can track the incidence of other diseases of the era, including tuberculosis and scarlet fever. The former experienced a steep decline that began in the late 1700s, despite the fact that a vaccine wasn't created until 1928. There still isn't a scarlet fever vaccine and yet its plunge in incidence mirrored that of smallpox.

Figure 3

And scarlet fever was far from alone in that regard.

Figure 4

In general terms, improvements in sanitation and basic living conditions made the biggest difference. The Industrial Revolution had prompted a reordering of the working class, with large numbers of serfs moving from rural to urban and living in absolute squalor. Plagues and infectious disease were rife:

“Early progressives in turn argued that improving deadly living conditions through early public hygiene programs and lessening the capitalist exploitation of the working class (by say giving humane hours or not forcing children 5 years of age to do backbreaking labor all day long) was the key to public health.”(12)

The invention of the motor car was also of profound importance, as horses were replaced as a means of transportation and the streets were no longer strewn with manure. In the specific case of smallpox, a far less virulent strain – variola minor – eventually out-competed the major strain at about the turn of the twentieth century. In short, the central plank of public health and vaccination programmes is rotten; there is no compelling evidence that smallpox vaccination had any beneficial effect and bucket-loads of statistics that demonstrate the complete opposite.

The public were disenchanted. Mandatory vaccination in England became a bête noire in the late nineteenth century. Enforcement officers were assaulted and there were regular riots. Refusenik parents frequently preferred prison over vaccinating their children. The medical community, then as now, couldn't bring itself to surrender its delusion, but the Leicester method – immediate quarantine, disinfection of a patient's home and the additional quarantining of their contacts – gradually gained public acceptance and, in combination with the improvements in public sanitation, was almost certainly the primary driver in the eradication of smallpox.

By 1948 in the UK, the dead letter that was compulsory vaccination was abolished, but the entire population was by then unvaccinated and unaffected by smallpox. Health authorities still weren't having it and the official legend is that it was the WHO's Leslie Henderson who eradicated smallpox worldwide via an enthusiastic vaccination campaign that achieved 80% vaccine coverage in the various African countries that were still not pox-free by the 1970s.(13)(14) Thus, the concept of vaccination was rehabilitated. But in the early 1900s, memories were still fresh. Smallpox vaccination was vilified, not celebrated and anybody obtuse enough to make the case for any other vaccine would not have been favorably received. The title of a book published in 1899 reflected the consensus view of the public: Vaccination: Proved Useless & Dangerous.(15)

At this time, allopathy (conventional medicine) was just one of four main schools of medicine in the Western world, the others being homeopathy, naturopathy and osteopathy and allopathy was on the way out – many of its treatments didn't work and/or were highly toxic. But there was money in it and two of America's premier robber barons – Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller – set to work. The Flexner Report of 1910, financed by Carnegie, was used to close down non-allopathic medical schools and Rockefeller invested heavily in the kind of schools that would help him turn a healthy profit.(16) Allopathy duly came to monopolize medicine.(17)

Some of the factors that bedevilled later vaccination campaigns have their roots in the smallpox chronicle; an untested vaccine (or one that had been insufficiently tested prior to some form of approval), magical thinking, a flagrant disregard for the evidence, long-standing official intransigence and false narratives - these were all showcased from the very beginning of the entire vaccination folklore. But at least there was a genuine infectious disease to combat, which was not the case with the next 'epidemic' in search of a vaccine.

Polio was almost unknown in the mid-nineteenth century, when all the other diseases were at their worst:

“As the mortality for the other diseases plummeted in the first half of the 20th century, polio mortality climbed. Polio mortality had the opposite trend of most the other diseases and the opposite trend of infectious disease mortality in general.”(18)

Which ought to give pause to the critical thinker, especially as the definition of the disease is sketchy in the extreme and can be summarized as flu symptoms accompanied by a small risk of paralysis. Indeed, it's only if paralysis develops from these flu-like symptoms that a diagnosis of polio is made.

Public health authorities in the early 1950s debuted another new technique – the terror campaign, featuring that hardy staple that we've come to know and love; asymptomatic spread. According to the WHO, the CDC and every other health propaganda outlet, the vast majority of polio cases are symptomless, but the disease is so contagious that it can still “infect 90-100% of household contacts.”(19) Which is a curious claim to make, when one observes the precautions (or lack thereof) taken by medical staff when treating the disease.

Figure 5

The truth about poliomyelitis is hard to take, because it (along with AIDS, Covid and climate change) is the exemplar of the art of Really Big Lies; the ones that are “so divorced from reality that the listener will assume their own perception must be flawed, rather than the claims of the person speaking to them. Only an insane or ridiculous person would make such outlandish claims, and a credible institution would not employ such a person.”(20) Go big or go home. They can be hugely successful if one is possessed of enough chutzpah or psychopathy to attempt them and, once they become embedded, they can permanently warp reality. “Inventing truth can be more effective than bending it.”(21)

In the case of polio, every aspect of the official narrative is a lie – beginning with the very existence of the 'virus' itself. By 1824, metal workers had been suffering from a paralysis similar to polio for centuries. This was caused by the lead and, more particularly, arsenic which was present in the metals that they worked with. This was known to scientists of the time.(22) Nevertheless, by 1890, in that cavalier manner perfected by our leaders, lead arsenate pesticide started to be sprayed on US crops up to twelve times a summer. The first polio outbreak was not long in making its presence felt – in Vermont, two years later, in an apple growing region. Children had fallen ill after eating fruit.(23) That would be because arsenic is known to be poisonous to humans' central nervous system (CNS).

Never daunted, regulators next permitted another pesticide to come into use (mostly on common crops) – calcium arsenate, from 1907. “In a Massachusetts town with three cotton mills and apple orchards, 69 children suddenly fell ill with infantile paralysis.”(24) This was a mere year later. The following year, the UK banned the import of US apples due to the arsenic residues. Come 1943, a new wonder pesticide began to make its mark; a neurotoxin called dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). For reasons which, at this remove, seem woefully inadequate (the presumption that insects caused typhus and polio prominent among them), Americans sprayed it everywhere – in industrial quantities.(25) DDT is also known to be harmful to our CNS.

Figure 6

Farmers dusted cows down with it and even sprayed it directly in the milk. Housewives bought arsenic-impregnated wallpaper. No-one was spared.

Figure 7

A major cause of the sickness and death of US troops in the Philippines was the poliomyelitis induced by the daily DDT spraying they endured at their military bases. By 1946, it was demonstrated that 'polio' seasonality was directly correlated with the fruit harvest.(26) By 1949, it was shown that DDT caused “lesions in the spinal cord similar to human polio.”(27) Some enlightened medical men began to connect the dots by treating 'polio' patients as victims of poisoning – a Dr F R Klenner, for one:

“In the poliomyelitis epidemic in North Carolina in 1948 60 cases of this disease came under our care… The treatment was massive doses of vitamin C every two to four hours. Children up to four years received vitamin C injections intramuscularly … All patients were clinically well after 72 hours.”(28)

In 1950, Congress was directly presented with evidence to show that 'polio' epidemics were caused by pesticides. By way of proving that no good turn goes unpunished, they were roundly ridiculed.(29) Not because they were wrong, but for the opposite reason. The myth's proportions were too daunting now. No challenge to the orthodoxy could be allowed. Besides, scientists had convinced themselves that they'd succeeded in isolating the virus and much potential treasure was now at stake – both in terms of liability for DDT and lost profits from a potential vaccine. They hadn't isolated polio, though. Difficult to do when the disease doesn't exist.

That hadn't stopped various claimants contending that they had, from 1908 onwards. “When the headlines claim purification/isolation, it is always found out after closer inspection that this is never the case.”(30) There was always a percentage of purification involved and it was never preceded by the number 100. Nor was 'purification' ever purportedly from a human subject. Polio researchers were engaged in the opposite of critical thinking; they assumed that polio existed and attempted to work backwards from that assertion, shoehorning in 'evidence' as they went.

Had they adopted the correct scientific methodology, it would have swiftly become clear that they were flogging a dead horse. Instead, they contorted like pretzels and proceeded on the basis of guesswork alone. Yes, it really was that bad. They had no idea what it was that they had 'purified'. They couldn't even be sure that it was a virus;

“...there is no evidence of a Polio “virus” taken directly from a sick human which was then purified/isolated and proven pathogenic. What we do have is a history of horrors...we have a mixture of these disturbing practices put together from the brain/spine of a mouse, the emulsified CNS of a monkey, and the feces of a paralyzed patient combined into a monkey kidney tissue culture subjected to formaldehyde/sodium bisulfite as well as other unknown ingredients which was then injected directly into healthy people.”(31)

That injection was the Salk vaccine, inadequately tested, rushed into production and rolled out due to the constantly hyped “unexplained horror” of polio. So unexplained, in fact, that nobody could work out why it was predominantly a rural disease and how it could possibly be infectious when, as one study found, of the 1,400 cases they reviewed, only 40 cases of more than one patient in a family could be identified.(32) None of the usual hypotheses of spread were applicable and, despite decades of study, it was apparent that “the more we learn about poliomyelitis, the less we know.”(33) Which tends to be the case when a faulty assumption is treated as holy writ.

Salk's vaccine endured an inauspicious launch. In April 1955, the Cutter Laboratories manufactured product was given to over 200,000 children and, almost immediately, reports of paralysis started flooding in. Unfortunately, the process by which the live virus was to be inactivated was faulty. Forty thousand kids got 'polio', 200 of whom were paralyzed. Ten were killed.(34) That was the reason given by officialdom, in any event, but Heaven knows what material was actually in the vaccine. It certainly wasn't the non-existent polio virus. But even this calamity didn't prevent ninety eight million Americans from volunteering for inoculation:

“For 8 years, the ignorant people fearful of a “virus” never scientifically proven to exist nor cause disease, lined up for experimental injections that caused harm to hundreds of thousands (a very likely undercount).”(35)

The government demonstrated its habitual altruism, once again, in 1961. By then it was known that the tissue cultures of rhesus and macaque monkeys that had been used to grow Salk's vaccine were contaminated by the SV40 simian virus, which has been shown to be cancerous to hamsters and to human cells in culture. So, the US made sure that any new lots of vaccine were clear of SV40, but didn't recall previously manufactured lots, which could have been used for another two years.(36) It is estimated that between 10% and 30% of these 98 million Americans received a jab contaminated by SV40.(37) This debacle was the final straw for the IPF (intravenous polio vaccine), which was swapped out for an oral version (OPV), which did not prove to be an improvement. How could it be if polio doesn't exist?

And we know that governments are aware of this fact because of the tactics they deployed in the mid-50s in their attempts to show that the vaccination campaign was a success. Firstly, they redefined the disease, in the same way that they have recently redefined 'pandemic' and 'vaccine'. Prior to 1954, a diagnosis of polio would be made after 24 hours of paralysis. After 1954, a patient was required to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least sixty days before such a diagnosis would be given. As many cases were temporary in nature,

“...thousands of cases which would have previously been counted as polio would no longer be counted as polio. The change in the definition laid the groundwork for creating the impression that the Salk vaccine was effective.”(38)

Even then, more gerrymandering was required, due to the fact that the vaccine was still wreaking havoc – between 1957 and 1958, cases numbers were up 50% and the next year they increased a further 80%.(39) It could have been a lot worse were it not for the second line of defense. An even more far-reaching redefinition decreed that what would previously have been 'polio' was also now aseptic meningitis, acute flaccid myelitis or Guillain-Barre Syndrome.(40) In addition, the use of DDT was phased out and the problem was exported, instead. Numbers of 'polio' cases tumbled as a result.

'Polio' still exists in some locations, notably in South America, Africa and Asia, where farmers still use DDT on a variety of food crops. Elsewhere, vaccine derived 'polio' is also alive and kicking, usually in any country where Gates' Global Polio Eradication Initiative is operating. His programme in India, between 2000 and 2017, is likely responsible for 491,000 paralyzed children.(41) The vaccine induced version also lives on in the West; it's just called something else.

“It’s safe to say that the symptoms of Polio are still present and accounted for today, even in the US where it was supposedly eradicated but was instead reclassified as either Acute Flaccid Myelitis or Guillain-Barre Snydrome. It is admitted that the vaccines are producing the exact same disease in children, especially in third world countries.”(42)

And governments haven't given up on pushing the vaccine. They've been conducting their now-familiar predictive programming and normalization protocols since late 2021, the year after the WHO granted their own version of an EUA (emergency use authorization) to a new “genetically engineered ... triple locked” oral vaccine. Since then, Ukraine, the UK, the US and the UK have been talking up the potential for an epidemic and bemoaning low vaccination rates.(43) It feels somewhat like the slow-moving bird flu set up. Perhaps they don't care which vaccine we get, as long as we get one of them, which makes one wonder what characteristic they may all have in common. I suspect the answer to that is the mRNA platform.

And so, the entire legend of polio is fabricated. 'Polio' was DDT poisoning (and previous to that, poisoning by other pesticides) and is now either that or the vaccine induced variety. In addition, vaccine induced 'polio' isn't polio if the disease doesn't exist. It is, instead a condition induced by whatever slop they put in the 'vaccine'. It was never a contagious disease that could cause paralysis. Scientists were reduced to injecting whatever they thought they'd 'isolated' directly into the brains of monkeys to have any effect at all.(44) 'Polio' was the result of reckless environmental poisoning and our governments have been telling us giant porkies for decades.

After all, an inability to isolate and identify a virus is a pretty big deal. For starters, its very existence can't be proven until that happens. Secondly, a vaccine cannot be manufactured until one knows what the real thing looks like. At no point, despite a plethora of assurances to the contrary, has anyone managed to do what's required at the most basic of levels. All other conundrums are downstream from this failure, the most consequential of which is the lack of transmissibility. The obvious – and unacceptable – conclusion is that the disease doesn't actually exist. But, despite that, it's served its purpose, just as the smallpox yarn did previously:

“It would be a mistake to think that the polio epidemic was not related to the current ‘age of vaccination’ we find ourselves in. On the contrary, claiming that polio was “eradicated in the United States” due to vaccination alone is a lie that garnered public favour for childhood vaccinations and helped to set the groundwork for the widespread belief in the safety and efficacy of all vaccines.”(45)

Incredible though it may seem, they've also been lying to us about HIV and AIDS. When I say 'they', what I really mean is Fauci. AIDS gave the malevolent hobbit his first spell in the limelight, one that he parlayed for decades in a never-ending search for a vaccine for yet another disease that doesn't exist. The first clue as to the veracity of that latter assertion is the use of the word 'syndrome', as in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. As was the case with polio, AIDS is not a disease: “Rather, it is a syndrome defined by the presence of any of 30 separate and previously known diseases, accompanied by the actual or suspected presence of HIV.”(46)

And even that definition is an over-simplification, as AIDS shape-shifts by location: “The definition has changed over time and is different for Africa (where HIV testing is rare) than for Europe and North America.”(47) And, once again, as 'polio' was flu + paralysis, so AIDS is similarly vexing to pinpoint. “The studies should employ an unbiased definition of AIDS. Too often we have been told that HIV always accompanies AIDS, only to learn that this is so because AIDS without HIV is named something else.”(48) Which is convenient, but not particularly authoritative to a lay-person.

More klaxons blare when one learns that the African strain of the syndrome differs markedly from the one found in the Western world, as “the distribution of AIDS-defining diseases in Africa differs strongly from those in the US and Europe ... For example, the predominant and most distinctive AIDS diseases in the US and Europe, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi’s sarcoma, are almost never diagnosed in Africa.”(49) In fact, “African sickness was included in the AIDS epidemic merely because HIV had already been implicated in sickness in the industrial world, and this same virus could be found endemically in Africa.”(50)

It almost sounds like we are, perhaps, talking about entirely different diseases, but because it's actually a 'syndrome' (not a disease), we are encouraged to avert our eyes and move right along. I suppose we could do that, but the fact that I'm writing this and you're reading it is illustrative of our collective disinclination to overlook blatant anomalies, combined with a well-earned distrust of official narratives. So, we won't. We have to dig deeper and it's remarkable how little excavation is required. It transpires that the truth that undermines the AIDS fable is hiding in plain sight.

Never having researched the subject previously, I did nonetheless have a fundamental question that needed an answer: How is it that AIDS could break out in the bath-houses of America and also in deepest Africa and, initially, nowhere in between? After all, “contagious diseases do not usually discriminate between the sexes or races. But, we are told, AIDS somehow does, by disproportionately affecting men and black people.”(51) Not simply men – gay men (predominantly) in America and straight men and women in Africa. That seemed to be somewhat of a paradox and, “since there are no paradoxes in nature only flawed hypotheses, the scientific method calls for an alternative, testable hypothesis.”(52)

And, initially, there was at least an alternative explanation for the American end of the puzzle, advanced by none other than Fauci himself. Prior to his elevation to the highest paying job in the federal bureaucracy as head of NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) in 1984, the vertically challenged administrator (along with anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex, excepting the CDC which was keen to push the fallacy that an infectious agent was responsible)(53) initially believed that AIDS was an unfortunate consequence of the gay lifestyle. Though memory-holed now, this was a far from controversial take; it was fairly mainstream and with good reason.

It has long been known that illicit recreational drug use caused many of the diseases covered by the Western AIDS definition.(54) At the time of the first outbreaks, in 1981, the major at-risk groups were male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, who were being afflicted by a variety of previously identified diseases such as tuberculosis, lymphoma, herpes and dementia as well as Kaposi's sarcoma and were suffering weight loss, toxoplasmosis and chronic fevers.(55) A similar non-random epidemic was also raging in Europe and the selective distribution of these epidemics immediately prompted the hypothesis that lifestyle-specific causes were likely.

Interestingly, this collection of diseases was not randomly distributed – Kaposi's syndrome was exclusively the preserve of young male homosexuals who used poppers and other psychoactive drugs. This was a connection that had already been made. Indeed, three years prior to the first diagnosis, the first cases of Kaposi's sarcoma had been linked to the overuse of amyl nitrate.(56) It just wasn't regarded as AIDS, then. TB and pneumonia were more prevalent in intravenous drug takers and crack addicts. Bacterial pneumonia was diagnosed in the children of women who had used psychoactive drugs during pregnancy.(57) And so on. This didn't make much sense at the time and still doesn't.

But the CDC wasn't going to waste time investigating cause and effect and, a mere three months after “detecting the new epidemics of old diseases”,(58) an immunodeficient syndrome was born; this despite the fact that “about one third of the CDC’s collection of AIDS diseases are neither caused by, nor necessarily associated with immunodeficiency.”(59) Even the diseases that were microbial diseases were ordinarily passenger diseases, kept in check by a healthy immune system. The CDC's designation therefore required there to be some underlying, causative agent that acted upon the immune system. The search was on.

But not yet on in Africa. Somehow or other, the African AIDS epidemic wasn't to emerge until 1984 and, when it did, it was again comprised of long standing, indigenous diseases – with a twist. Instead of being concentrated in at-risk groups, the syndrome was randomly distributed among both sexes. But by then, the mystery had apparently been officially solved. Not by Fauci, whose contribution thusfar was notable for advancing unproven theories about AIDS being spread via “routine close contact, as within a family household.”(60)

No, the heroes of the hour were Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier who, between them, had isolated a retrovirus (now know as HIV) from an AIDS patient and Gallo declared that it was this virus that suppressed the immune system, thus resulting in AIDS.(61) The claim is that the virus depletes the T-helper cells. Quite how it does this was not known. And later it emerged that “only 26 of the 76 AIDS victims in his seminal study showed any traces of the HIV virus, an extremely slender reed for such a momentous conclusion.”(62) Nonetheless, the medical establishment was somehow convinced; the science was now settled. HIV caused AIDS. A test for HIV and a vaccine were the priority, not empirical data. Fauci, now in the top job at NIAID and on the way to a larger salary than POTUS, was all over it. His budget ballooned to $3 billion a year by the end of the decade but the elusive vaccine was continually out of reach.

However, the HIV tests were produced. I almost prefaced the word 'produced' with 'successfully', but I caught myself just in time. If you thought the Covid PCR test was hopelessly inaccurate (and it was), the HIV version provides stiff competition. Instead of testing for the presence of HIV, the test is supposedly searching for antibodies to HIV. This is because there is very little detectable virus in AIDS patients. In fact, “fewer than 1 out of every 10,000 of the host's T-helper cells are actively infected by HIV even during AIDS.”(63) And HIV is, as previously noted, a retrovirus - “retroviruses are poor candidates to blame serious diseases on, particularly fatal conditions involving the deaths of huge numbers of cells, such as AIDS.”(64)

If we abandon the dogma for a moment and engage brain, it is immediately apparent that the HIV/AIDS linkage is, in the absence of some unknown mechanism that would upend the literature on virology, bullshit. It explains nothing and makes no sense.

“It is very difficult to understand how HIV would be able to devastate the immune system while never infecting more than a tiny fraction of its cells. Even if every infected cell were killed, the number of T cells lost at any time would be roughly equivalent to the number lost through bleeding from shaving. Such losses could be sustained indefinitely without affecting the immune system, because the body constantly produces new T cells at far higher rates.”(65)

Retroviruses typically don't kill cells; they infect cells and then copy their genetic information into the DNA of the host cell. All of us have between 50 and 100 retroviruses clogging up our genomes. The only symptoms that patients suffer upon infection with HIV (and then, only some of them), are brief and flu-like. After that, their immune system creates the necessary antibodies and they recover swiftly.(66) Which leads us to another absurdity – the fact that the tests measure antibodies:

“With every other disease, the presence of antibodies is the signal that the patient has vanquished the disease. With AIDS, Fauci and Gallo … claim it’s a sign you’re about to die.”(67)

This latter contention is drivel. Antibodies reduce the primary infection to negligible levels and yet this is when the damage starts to be done? This laughably improbable test (which its inventor insisted was to be used as a secondary tool to confirm an initial diagnosis) is completely incoherent. By way of example; if the search for a vaccine had been successful, it would have promoted the production of antibodies. Using the logic of the test, it would also have given an HIV patient AIDS.

The tests are also hopelessly inaccurate. False positives are the order of the day, especially in Africa. In one study, 40 leprosy patients out of 57 tested positive, but further testing demonstrated that only 2 actually had HIV.(68) This is because “both the ELIZA and the Western Blot Both have ... been shown to cross-react with things other than HIV antibodies.”(69) Not only that – there is also “no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood.”(70) It's subjective – 'high-risk' individuals may be diagnosed as positive, while someone regarded as 'low-risk' may not, even if the test result is identical.(71) How do you like them apples?

There is also further magical thinking detracting from the hypothesis. As only some HIV 'sufferers' develop AIDS, the orthodoxy has incorporated the theory of 'genetic immunity' into the narrative. They have no evidence to support this contention, but they do somehow have to account for the fact that the ratio of AIDS deaths to HIV infection, even in Africa, is startlingly low. A Ugandan study (a country with a reputation for conscientious reporting), showed only 10,000 deaths but over 800,000 HIV infections.(72)

Then there's the latency issue. Somehow, proponents of the HIV/AIDS nexus have to explain why it is that there is such a time lag between diagnosis with HIV and the onset of AIDS. But they can't, for the simple reason that “no virus has ever been proven to cause disease typically after long latent periods, rather than when it first infects a new host.”(73) Fauci maintains that HIV can “infiltrate and kill” T-cells and also “stimulate the response of other immune cells so that they eventually collapse from overwork or confusion.”(74) The inference is, presumably, that this takes time, although quite how he knows this is a mystery, as there have never been any controlled studies establishing that HIV causes AIDS.(75)

The continued prevalence of AIDS in the at-risk groups alone and the stable totals for AIDS sufferers dictates that the syndrome cannot be characterized as an epidemic. All the predictions spouted by Fauci et al – that HIV will spread rapidly, that “by 1990, one in five heterosexuals will be dead from AIDS” (76) and so forth – have been shown to be dreck. And that's because HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Its design doesn't allow it to. It's simply a passenger retrovirus and it's entirely possible that large numbers of us would test positive if we too were tested. Its presence in an AIDS patient does not provide causation, merely correlation and there is no reason to believe that “HIV infection causes a spectrum of 30 or so diseases many years later by a mechanism that no one can determine when it often can hardly be found at all.”(77) And there is evidence that HIV is only transmitted in one in thousand unprotected sexual encounters. And there are at thousands of HIV-free AIDS cases.(78) And even Aids itself is not contagious:

“...in the peer-reviewed literature, there is not one doctor or nurse who has ever contracted AIDS (not just HIV) from the over 816,000 AIDS patients recorded in the US in 22 years ... Not one of over ten thousand HIV researchers has contracted AIDS. Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS ... And there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes ... Thus AIDS is not contagious.”(79)

So, what does cause AIDS? Well, there are several likely candidates, but we need to be specific. Given that HIV testing is unreliable; also that around 1 in 275 Americans are allegedly HIV positive (presumably a reasonable guide for elsewhere); and that the suite of diseases which comprise the syndrome are all diseases that the other 274 could suffer from; and, finally, that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, there are a huge number of variables to consider. But there are two solid hypotheses that are much more persuasive that the orthodoxy and two further correlations that also have a lot going for them.

The first hypothesis is the at-risk behaviors that were thought to be the problem by a good number of eminent scientists at the onset of the 'epidemic'. There is considerable temporal correlation between hard drug use and AIDS diagnoses, for instance. Seizures of cocaine and heroin tripled over the course of the 1980s, in line with the explosion in AIDS diagnoses.(80) The CDC, of all people, conducted a 1983 study that found that all the male homosexuals they interviewed were using “batteries of recreational and aphrodisiac drugs”.(81) Two thirds of the AIDS diseases involve immune suppression, something that drug use induces.

“Alcohol, heroin, cocaine, marijuana, Valium, and amphetamines can all be found as part of the life histories of many AIDS patients. When combined with regular and prolonged malnutrition, as is done with many active homosexuals and with heroin addicts, this can lead to complete immune collapse. Antibiotics, when used heavily or over long periods, also wear down the immune system. Active homosexuals have been among the heaviest users, often taking large amounts of tetracycline and other antibiotics each evening before entering the bath houses.”(82)

Constant infections can also overload the immune system and anal adventurism is a guaranteed way of providing access to the bloodstream for many infectious agents. The seventies and eighties was the era of the gay liberation movement; sexual promiscuity and drug use increased exponentially and disease epidemics among young. gay men in the big cities became an occupational hazard.

It would have been more surprising if there hadn't been cohorts of young men with multiple diseases come 1981. This hypothesis would explain why AIDS in the West has remained confined to the same at-risk groups. It would also explain the lengthy (and inconsistent) latency, the preponderance of male cases, the disparity between HIV cases and the much fewer AIDS cases, the lack of transmissibility and much more besides, including why there is plentiful anecdotal evidence of “AIDS patients who recover after ending drug use, sexual promiscuity and prophylactic antibiotic use and who also improve their nutritional status,”(83) which ought not be possible according to the orthodoxy.

The second hypothesis is more applicable to the African version of AIDS, which is also to be found in Asia and Latin America. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that, once again, AIDS has nothing to do with HIV. The 'wasting disease' associated with African AIDS is not a new phenomenon, just as all of the Western syndrome diseases are also retreads. Malnutrition and a lack of drinkable water are two of the factors that are historically prevalent and which explain the symptoms far better than a random diagnosis which, in this iteration of the disease, doesn't even include HIV in its description. If you listen to the high priests of the AIDS cult, you will have heard that sub-Saharan Africa has been devastated by the disease for over thirty years. This is just another lie:

“Between 1980 and 2000 the population of Sub-Saharan Africa increased from 378 million to 652 million, corresponding to an annual growth rate of 3.6%. This is in spite of a cumulative reported total of 1,093,522 AIDS cases by 2001. The population of Sub-Saharan Africa has grown by a factor of 2.8 times since the AIDS epidemic supposedly began in Africa. In Africa, diseases caused by poverty have been rebranded as AIDS and there has been no “HIV” epidemic.”(84)

The two further correlations that I previously alluded to concern vaccination campaigns which preceded the original outbreaks. The first 26 cases of AIDS in the US were from New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, the three cities that carried out the most expansive hepatitis B vaccine trials just prior to the outbreak. A New York study found that of 212 vaccine recipients in New York, 85 contracted AIDS.(85) And The Times of London ran a 1987 story claiming that the WHO had asked an outside consultant to investigate whether their smallpox vaccine scheme, which ran for thirteen years until 1980, had played a role in Africa's 'epidemic'. The consultant apparently replied in the affirmative.

"The smallpox vaccine theory would account for the position of each of the seven Central African States which top the table of most affected countries; why Brazil became the most afflicted Latin American Country; and how Haiti became the route for the spread of AIDS to the US. Brazil was the only South American country covered in the eradication of smallpox campaign and has the highest incidence of AIDS in that region, Zaire has 33 million smallpox vaccinations, Zambia 19 million, Tanzania 14 million and so on... Haiti had 14,000 citizens living in Central Africa, they had smallpox inoculations there and eventually returned home."(86)

As we now know, a diagnosis of Third World AIDS is of as much utility as a chocolate fireguard, but one might conclude that the smallpox vaccine was instrumental in sickening recipients in a variety of ways. The same applies to the trial hepatitis vaccine, which may very well have compromised immune response, as vaccines tend to do – at least, temporarily.

But, at the time, the official version of events was ensconced in the public consciousness and Fauci was coming under pressure. Where was the vaccine? The vaccine for a disease that didn't exist, other than as separate, established diseases. How could a vaccine be simultaneously effective against dementia, Kaposi's sarcoma and pneumonia? How could any treatment tackle both conventional diseases and those which were autoimmune in character?

Or, if the miracle cure was to combat HIV instead, how could he come up with a brew that thwarted a retrovirus that even Montagnier had come to view as “harmless and passive, a benign virus”?(87) The answer is that he couldn't, which he must have known, but that didn't stop him trying. He had billions of dollars and it needed to be spent. And because it was Fauci, medical ethics were unlikely to feature prominently, if at all. And so it proved. But clinical trials take time, or at least they did prior to the Covid 'vaccines'. He needed to find something to tide him over, to justify his budget and so he did what any self-respecting sociopath would do – he lied and cheated.

In 1985, AZT (an existing drug) was found capable of killing HIV in laboratory testing. This was not entirely surprising, but the reason for its efficacy was not emphasized. AZT kills cells – period. It doesn't differentiate between healthy and unhealthy - it simply “kills all actively growing cells in the patient; chief among these are the cells of the immune system.”(88)

Fauci didn't care. He rushed it through clinical trials in two years flat, faking the evidence as he went. The fact that many of the patients who received it died was attributed to the 'virus' itself, a cover-up that was aided by some of the symptoms of AZT poisoning – such as anaemia and muscle wasting – which resemble AIDS symptoms.(89) The drug was too expensive to fail, coming in at $10,000 per year, per patient.(90) To be administered as a prophylactic.

Think how monstrous this is for a moment. HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. Nonetheless, perfectly healthy HIV patients were put on a course of AZT, even though “inhibiting HIV would accomplish nothing, while AZT actually produces the very immune suppression it is supposed to prevent.”(91) In addition, given that the tests for HIV were so inaccurate and produced an epidemic of false positives, perfectly healthy non-HIV individuals would also get caught in the dragnet. Hundreds of thousands of them. In fact, many experts now belief that the majority of alleged AIDS death post-1987 were instead down to AZT.

Fauci had managed to expand the 'epidemic'. Instead of working with at-risk groups to reduce the damage their lifestyle was doing to them, he had fanned the flames with his talk of social contagion and alarming casualty predictions, leapt on the 'it's a virus' bandwagon, accepted the HIV hypothesis as established scientific fact and then gone about harming and killing the healthy with a drug he knew would do just that. On top of that, he (along with many others) was still looking for a 'cure' for AIDS that he knew could not exist.

By March 1988, over 80 different AIDS drugs and 25 vaccines were under development.(92) None of them looked promising. Undaunted, Fauci's National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided that he would use New York 'AIDS orphans' as guinea pigs in AIDS drug trials, starting in 1992. However, they weren't necessarily orphans and they didn't have AIDS. They were either children born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who tested positive themselves, using a test that cross-reacted to at least seventy common conditions. They were then removed from their parents by Child Services and taken to a children's home called Incarnation Children's Center (ICC). They were black, Hispanic and poor, aka expendable.(93)

Figure 8

They were force-fed drugs that had already proven to be dangerous in adults. If they resisted, they were operated upon and a gastric tube was inserted, so that the medication could still be administered.

Figure 9

The world's largest pharmaceutical companies were all co-conspirators – the likes of GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer amongst them. The drugs were known to cause “genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders,”(94) AZT and Nevirapine among them. This is what the latter can do to a child.

Figures 10 & 11

Fauci called the place “New York City’s only skilled nursing facility providing specialized care for children and adolescents living with HIV/AIDS.”(95) There was an exposé in 2003, leading to a report by the VERA Institute of Justice, an allegedly independent non-profit. They were given no access to the children's medical records, but they still found that 25 kids died during the trials and that a further 55 died after them, in foster care (where they were forced to take the drugs or be returned to ICC). As of 2009, an additional 121 had died.(96) Despite this report, Wikipedia claims that “no children had died as a result of the trials.”(97) Apparently, more than 200 children died of other causes. And if they're admitting to 200 plus, I'm willing to bet the number is a fair bit higher.

To this day, there isn't a vaccine for AIDS. Nor will there ever be. Fauci and all the other psychopathic panjandrums in Big Pharma know this full well. They know that when a hypothesis doesn't fit, you don't spend 40 years trimming a square peg so that it might be rammed into a round hole. Instead, you change the hypothesis. But they won't do that, because too much money has been spent ($2 trillion and counting),(98) there's still too much at stake in the future and they have been lying for far too long to back out now.

Nor will our leaders ever admit their calumnies with regard to smallpox and polio, because without those foundations, they have nothing. The legitimacy of vaccination as a premier palliative would be seen to be reliant upon initial incompetence followed by extreme mendacity. We would realize that we have been treated to spoiled fruit from a tree of lies. And now they have a new wheeze that's going to net them their biggest profit yet, turning a busted flush into a cash cow, ready to repeatedly dispense after a lead-in time of months, rather than a decade or more. A single shot blank-firer, transformed into a semi-auto with an extended mag, just like that. All that R&D they'll no longer have to endure, all the uncertainty and risk ameliorated, all the liability removed. Simply create the scare with some dodgy PCR tests, wait for Tedros to do the necessary and then just plug and play. They can make an mRNA 'vaccine' for pretty much any disease, even the ones they invent.

Think how many in the medical community must have known that HIV/AIDS was a scam since the very beginning. We non-experts may not have known that HIV was a retrovirus. We wouldn't necessarily understand how that fact invalidates the link to AIDS. We almost certainly didn't know that the HIV test was a test for antibodies, not for the disease itself. Nor would we typically be aware of the significance of the 'syndrome' v 'disease' dichotomy, nor how the fact that a third of the diseases said to be AIDS were not autoimmune diseases is problematic. There's more, too.

“Simply put, there is no proven precedent for the following claims regarding HIV: 1) No virus has ever been scientifically shown to cause its disease only after being neutralized by antibodies. 2) No virus has ever been proven to cause disease typically after long latent periods, rather than when it first infects a new host. 3) No virus has ever been shown to kill thousands of times more cells than it infects. 4) No retrovirus, including HIV, has ever been demonstrated to kill systematically any of the cells it infects. 5) No virus has ever been found that causes radically different diseases in different hosts (AIDS includes diseases not caused by immune suppression). 6) No sexually transmitted disease has ever remained so rigidly confined to specific risk groups, and to males, for 10 full years. In short, if the HIV-AIDS hypothesis were true, it would be a truly revolutionary break with all previous scientific experience.”(99)

I would estimate that at least 99% of doctors know at least one of those points to be true, whether they are prepared to admit it to themselves or not. I would also bet that most of them knew from Gallo's first press conference in 1984. How could they not? And yet, with a few honorable exceptions, they have kept schtum for forty years. Which should no longer be a surprise to us, because we saw what they did during the 'pandemic' and what they continue to do to this day, with nary an iota of shame nor repentance.

It seems to me that, instead of some acceptably moderate approach to vaccination as a whole – you know, something along the lines of “I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I have some doubts about this or that jab” - we should be far less sanguine. It's not just the Covid jab (which, as we know, isn't a vaccine anyway); the case for all vaccinations rests on fake foundations. Smallpox, polio, AIDS, Covid... plus a few more that we thought were valid.

Figure 12

If I were of a cynical disposition, I might see a pattern developing; namely the introduction of a vaccine when the disease is on the way out due to other factors, such as improvements in sanitation or the phasing out of environmental factors which were the true cause of the 'disease' – like DDT. I might also be cognizant of the fact that worshiping at the altar of vaccination has resulted in a vast increase in both the variety and number of injections that children routinely receive. This is the US version of the Childhood Vaccination Schedule (CVS) for the first eighteen months of life, but other schedules are also hugely invasive. In the UK, for instance, a baby will have been given eight jabs for nine diseases by 16 weeks old. A combined inoculation for six diseases – diptheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, haemophilus influenza type B and hepatitis – will have already been administered thrice.(100)

Figure 13

Fifty years ago, prior to the campaign of hyper-vaccinating children, the autism rate in the US was around 1 in 10,000. Now it's 1 in 36. Back then a kid received 5 shots. Now they receive 180.(101) I've even seen a case where triplets all developed autism on the same day, within hours of their pneumococcal vaccine.(102)

“Contrary to popular belief, there is actually a great deal of compelling evidence linking vaccines to autism. For example, regressive autism always develops shortly after vaccination—but never before, something that cannot happen unless one causes the other.”(103)

Evidence suggests that most SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) cases (probably 75% or more) are also due to childhood vaccination, usually within 48 hours of a 'routine' jab. Pediatric clinics which avoid vaccines have zero (or near zero) rates of both autism and SIDS.(104) Vaccine injuries in general are far more common that the establishment is prepared to acknowledge and not simply limited to SIDS and autism; one in five children have neuro-developmental disabilities, one in ten have ADD or ADHD, one in eleven has asthma and one in twenty under the age of suffers with seizures.(105) There are numerous mechanisms of harm, well-documented. Only a fully paid-up member of the hard of thinking club could fail to make the connection.

And while adjuvants such as aluminium are undoubtedly a large part of the problem, the entire concept of vaccination is built on lies. The answer isn't to clean up the jabs, remove harmful ingredients, rationalize the schedule. The answer is to go back to basics, to understand that there never has been any evidence that any vaccine is necessary. That's after 225 years of trying; you'd have thought there'd be some by now. What we find instead is that either vaccines are introduced when diseases are already on the verge of being eradicated or that the 'disease' isn't a disease at all and the vaccine does nothing but harm, often producing the very same symptoms that the 'disease' itself presents.

“For 60 years, the CDC has propagated vaccines as the holy grail of medicine, like a magic pill that keeps everyone from dying of scary infectious diseases that nothing else on earth can save anyone from. Yet, billions of people survive without having any vaccines at all their whole lives, and on average, these folks are much healthier than the “fully vaccinated” droids and zombies who seem to be fighting mysterious disorders most of their lives.”(106)

We might also learn some lessons about the nature of our opponents, the credentialed class which populate Big Pharma and government. From the beginning of the vaccine era, they have lied to us. In the dim and distant, they also mandated inoculation, a practice that is enjoying a revival. They simply cannot be trusted to be honest and altruistic on any matter. The conniving and dishonesty is pathological. Any group that can inject the healthy with AZT, use orphans as pin cushions or preside over our latter-day CVS is comprised of monsters, but we should have known that already given their enthusiastic support for the clot shot. And they're not done yet.

Previous generations understood that vaccination was a problem. For some reason, even though our current experience is the most extreme of all, we don't - with the exception of the Covid 'vaccine'. We could do with wising up, fast.