(Thanks, Basil. :)

Writer Ethan Huff might be correct in his assertion about how AIDS came to be.

However, this statement is not entirely accurate:

Prior to the CDC’s administering of these hepatitis B vaccines among homosexual populations, HIV and AIDS didn’t even exist in the United States.

In fact there was a known condition with significant similarities. It was known as Immunodeficiency Syndrome or Immune Deficiency Syndrome (IDS), the difference being the 'A' in AIDS for "Acquired". It's mentioned in "Nutritional Influences on Illness".

Prof. Peter Duesberg, described here as a molecular biologist:

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Peter_Duesberg

...was also described as a world-class virologist until he began saying AIDS could not possibly be caused by "a harmless retrovirus like HIV". (That quote is from memory; I don't know if it can be found on the Web these days.) Part of the establishment theory of HIV->AIDS said HIV was a "slow-acting" virus and could be in the body for a long time without pronounced effect. Duesberg rather famously commented, "There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists." :) (Quoted from memory.)

Duesberg hypothesized that AIDS is caused by long-term consumption of recreational drugs or antiretroviral drugs, and that HIV is a harmless passenger virus. (So-called "anti-retroviral" drug AZT had listed side effects identical to symptoms attributed to AIDS. It had been developed as a cancer drug but proved too poisonous and too often lethal for that purpose.)

Who's correct, Huff et al. or Duesberg? I don't know. But I can see how there might be those who would prefer to suppress any idea that drugs, recreational or otherwise, could be causing such an epidemic of disease.

--hobie

*************************************************************