I recently stopped into the main 'branch' of the Newark Public Library, the magnificent Italian Renaissance palazzo opposite the northern tip of Washington Park where Washington Street ends at Broad Street. I wanted to see if a book about the origin of Newark street names circulates, so I might take it out. It does not, but the gentleman at the desk of the (Charles F. Cummings) New Jersey Information Center said it would be OK if, as I asked, I were able to bring in my laptop computer with a handheld scanner. Fotocopying from that small, frail book would not, he said, be advisable. (I haven't found my handheld scanner as of yet, to see if it connects to the computer by USB cable, which I can use, or by some other means I might not be able to use. I'm hoping for USB, and I have a very good idea of where that scanner is, but it would be under a bunch of other things in a wooden trunk.)
He said that the other book I inquired about, concerning Newark brooks and placenames, does circulate. He gave me the Dewey decimal number, and told me where to find it in the open stacks (NPL, unlike the NYPL, has open stacks anyone can look thru). I found and looked at that book. It has some interesting information, but what I saw did not focus on what I was mostly concerned with, street names. So I made mental note to check this out if ever I have time. Alas, time is in short supply in my life, despite my being, at least for the moment, fully retired.
I then thought, "Is there anything else I can accomplish while I'm here in the library?", and remembered that I have wanted, for years, to check whether the date of the page 12 that I ripped from my then-subscription copy of Discover Magazine, dated at the bottom of the page, "JANUARY 1982", was correct. I used to work for a small magazine, then called Atlas, later called World Press Review, and we planned portions of the publication two months in advance, so we always knew, even at the turn of the year, what months, in what years, we were planning for. So I had assumed that if "JANUARY 1982" was printed at the bottom of the page of a major magazine, it was not a mistake, like people writing the old year on checks in the first month of a new year.
The problem is that the item I had cut out, entitled "Outbreak", referred to the occurrence of an unusual cancer and another serious health problem a year and a half before January 1982, which would mean mid-1980. That three-paragraf item referred to what only later came to be known as AIDS. But the Government says that AIDS first appeared in mid-1981, a year later than that item indicated. Was Discover Magazine wrong, for having neglected to change the year in its footers, or was the U.S. Government wrong — or lying? (Don't struggle to read these first fotos of that page. I zoom in on the text in the last two fotos today. These others show only the context, to establish the unchallengeable legitimacy of the text I cite to.)
I went to the periodicals section of NPL, and asked if they had Discover Magazine for January 1982 and January 1983, in hardcopy or microfilm. They did not. Their microfilm records for Discover start in 1985. The woman at the desk, however, said that Interlibrary Services might be able to get that info from other collections, and guided me to that department, where a helpful gent sent out a request to other North Jersey libraries for a copy of page 12 of the January 1982 and 1983 issues of Discover Magazine. He anticipated that it could take a couple of days before he'd know if any of those libraries could provide those pages. I asked about getting that info from the NY Public Library (which I was reasonably sure would have them), and he said that he could issue such a request, but there would be a fee for info from NY, tho none from NJ. So I decided to wait. If other NJ libraries could not provide those copies, I would then ask how much it would cost to get them from NYPL (which would almost certainly be less than it would cost me to travel to 42nd Street and make copies there). The main building of the NY Public Library is a splendid edifice, but not one whit more beautiful than the main branch of the Newark Public Library. Indeed, I think NPL is more than a bit warmer and more gorgeous a building than NYPL. For one (big) thing, NPL has not just an atrium but also a stained-glass skylite OVER the atrium. NYPL has neither an atrium nor a skylite over its nonexistent atrium. Take that, NYPL!
A few days later, he called to say he did get the requested pages, and would leave them at the circulation desk on the first floor. I went by a couple of days later and picked up the envelope. The printouts from microfilm included the cover and page 12 of each issue, so there was no mistaking the info provided. I was right. Discover Magazine was right. In case you can't read the text in my first fotos of the printout, I type the key text new, below:
The Centers for Disease Control has reported the outbreak of two rare, serious diseases among homosexual men. In the past year and a half, [emphasis added] CDC recorded about 170 cases of Pneumocystis pneumonia and a cancer called Kaposi's sarcoma.The Government is lying about when AIDS first appeared in the United States. The exact same agency that said that what came to be known as AIDS first started to turn up in mid-1980, is now claiming that it first started to appear in mid-1981. Why? What possible justification could the CDC have for saying in January 1982 that this malady had started a year and a half earlier, but by 1985 and on thru this very day saying that it started in mid-1981? I don't know why they have lied, and continue to lie, but only that they have indeed lied. Don't they realize that once you are caut in a lie, everything you say on that topic thereafter is thrown into dout?
The Discover item goes on to say (again, emphasis added):
These diseases had previously been found in people whose immune systems were known to be deficient, suppressed by either illness or drugs. Doctors suspect that the new crop of victims, who were otherwise healthy, must have an underlying immune deficiency of some sort.So, in January 1982, scientists knew full well that recreational drugs could impair the immune system. But since then, that bit of common knowledge of the time has been willfully suppressed, and we are now to believe that only a virus, but NOT drugs, could suppress the immune system. They plainly think we are idiots, who don't know that drugs, without more, can completely knock out the immune system. If they could not, we could not transplant organs, because the immune system of the recipient would reject those implants.
They can only speculate about the cause. It is possible that homosexual men with many partners are more likely than others to pick up a sexually transmitted virus, called the cytomegalovirus, that may suppress the immune system, thereby inviting both diseases. Drugs may also play a role; in the cases reported, some victims had been using heroin, methadone, or cocaine.
Alas, even the most cynical people, who accuse the U.S. Government of horrible crimes and lies on all kinds of other topics, believe every single syllable that the Government says about AIDS. Why is that? The very same people who will gladly buy into fiction about the Government turning on honest CIA agents to hunt them down and kill them, suddenly, on the one topic of AIDS, choose to believe that the U.S. Government is our incorruptibly pure, noble guardian angel, guardian not only of our health but also of scientific truth about AIDS.
Here, as regards the start date of AIDS in America, we have actual, absolute proof that the Government is lying, but either nobody knows or nobody cares. Well, I knew before January 1982, and I have always cared, because I was a very active homosexual man certain, in 1980, when I first heard, on TV network news, of a fatal infection spread by (homosexual) sex, that I would die from it. Guess what? I didn't get AIDS. I didn't die from AIDS. Why? Because, as I have set out on my "Mr. Gay Pride" website, "Everything Government says about AIDS is false."
Thanks to the nice people at the Newark Public Library (and whatever other North Jersey library they got these printouts from), I have incontrovertible proof that the CDC is lying about the year AIDS started: NOT mid-1981, but mid-1980. Bear that lie in mind whenever you are tempted to take the Government's word about any aspect of AIDS. And when you see Magic Johnson alive and well on TV, many years after he should have died if "HIV" is the cause of AIDS, do NOT believe it is because of anti-"HIV" medications — because some people who took the exact same medications went on to die from AIDS anyway. Instead, THINK about how it can be that, 31 (actually nearly 32) years after AIDS started to appear in the United States, it has STILL not spread across the entire sexually active population, even tho there are 19 million cases of VD ("STDs") each and every year in this country, because most people do NOT practice "safe sex". AIDS has not spread the way any sexual infection would have to spread, because AIDS is not an infection. Gay men whose lovers died of AIDS have not themselves developed AIDS. The wives of hemophiliacs said to have died from AIDS — but who actually died from hemophilia, a genetic malady that was well understood until now to be lethal, without more — did not develop nor die from AIDS. Preposterous. The patterns disprove transmissibility.
AIDS stays confined, year after year, indeed decade after decade, to drug users, because it is a DRUG INJURY, not a transmissible disease at all. If you don't want to believe me on that — and how many lies have you caut me in? — but you now know with certitude from the proof I show today that the U.S. Government is a liar about AIDS, you need to ask why you need to believe a proven liar.
(I put HIV in quotes because that abbreviation refers to "Human Immunodeficiency Virus", but that feeble, harmless virus has, in reality, absolutely no causative relationship whatsoever to human immunodeficiency. There is in fact NO particular virus, bacterium, or other biological pathogen responsible for AIDS, only recreational and prescription drugs, including, tragically, some of the very drugs prescribed to fite AIDS, but which are actually lethally toxic. Hepatitis, an actually transmissible infection, underlay early cases of AIDS among gay men, which camouflaged the actual mechanism at issue, the use of terribly toxic recreational drugs by people whose liver had been damaged by that very hepatitis epidemic. AIDS was not transmissible. Hepatitis was transmissible. And the liver is the only organ in the body that can neutralize toxins, such as recreational drugs. Damage the liver but continue to use toxic drugs, and you DIE.)