“Does this mean the whole AIDS crisis was a scamdemic, like Covid?”
Sat 4:44 pm +00:00, 3 Oct 2026
Source, page 4 here: https://mileswmathis.com/acer.pdf
So why would CIA or Air Force or some other party fake this story? Not only as part of Operation
Chaos, but as a part of the whole AIDS, Herpes scare of the 1980s, created to drive people apart
sexually. And not just gays. If you lived through that time you remember straight people were testing
themselves and prospective partners for AIDS and Herpes from the late 80s to the 2000s and beyond.
Some still are. My ex-wife, who I met in 1985, told me soon after we met that she might have Herpes,
based on one tiny dot on her privates that soon went away. I never got anything from her in ten years
and don’t believe she ever had it. But her doctor had her scared, probably to sell her some expensive
test or treatment. It was just one more thing they were using to scare people away from having sex, and
it worked marvelously, as we now know. The sexual landscape has continued to destruct since then
and is now a shambles.
With the Acer project, I believe the central push was to mandate testing for all healthcare workers, like
we saw recently with Covid. Some consortium of billionaires no doubt had invested in tests and
mitigation for HIV and AIDS, and this was one of their projects to drive it.
Does this mean the whole AIDS crisis was a scamdemic, like Covid? Many of my readers are telling
me Duesberg and Mullis were right. Well, since we now know from Covid how the medical
establishment works, with thousands or millions being paid off from the top down by evil entities like
Pfizer, it means we should re-analyze AIDS in the light of that new knowledge, which neither
Duesberg or Mullis factored into the equation. And it doesn’t help the AIDS story that Anthony Fauci
was crouching behind both that and the Covid Plandemic.
In the push against Mullis and Duesberg we were told these two couldn’t be right against thousands of
mainstream experts, though Mullis was a Nobelist and Duesberg was a tenured professor of molecular
biology at Berkeley and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. But we now know what to
think of that. Not only is that a bogus argument, since science isn’t a matter of votes, but Covid taught
us the extent to which experts can be bought off, especially in science and medicine. We also know it
from my fight with the mainstream, where thousands have been bought off or silenced by institutional
pressure. [See the solar cycle fracas for the easiest example of that.] We see it on their Wiki pages,
where the “argument” against them never gets beyond these ad hominem feints and bows to number
and authority. We are told over and over they were wrong, but not once are we given any example.
Just some quote of an editor at Nature or a Cohen (see Jon Cohen, Science, 266, 1994), where again
nothing of substance is said:
…although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find
his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS
researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by a selective
reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses,
requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by
inconsequential weaknesses.
What researchers? Let me guess, Rockefeller or Gates researchers? But this isn’t scientific language,
because as scientists we don’t care what some unnamed researchers think, since we have no proof they
even exist. Cohen could be making them up and probably is. And these broad dismissals are no
dismissals at all. This is just bloviating until you address one of Duesberg’s actual arguments, which
these fellows will never do since they don’t want to give him press. I know, because this is the same
way they respond to me. This is precisely how they have programmed AI to respond to searches on
me. Ignore everything I ever said and claim mainstream scientists don’t agree with me, without ever
giving a name. Then claim I make mistakes without showing one of them. What mistakes,
specifically? No counter-argument, just variations of “he’s wrong”.
I will show you what I mean by being specific. Cohen says Duesberg dismisses studies based on
inconsequential weaknesses. What studies? This sentence has no content without knowing which
studies. Obviously Duesberg thought the weaknesses were consequential or he wouldn’t have keyed on
them. He said why. Cohen says they are inconsequential but doesn’t tell us what the weaknesses were,
much less how they weren’t consequential. So this isn’t a reply or an argument, it is just flapdoodle. It
is a bunch of words pretending to be a response. This is what the mainstream specializes in. 99.99%
of new science and AI is gas of this precise sort.
Name-dropping standing for science. Tongue-clicking that these two fellows would dare to disagree
with big-money mouthpieces.
