this guy claims AIDS is biowarfare.

http://www.thule.org/strecker.html

anybody?

if i was the moderator here I would move this thread to one of the subculture forums, or to the crap forum if we had it.

wow, you're an asshole, huh?

has it got anything to do with biology or genetics?

no


has ti got anything to do with conspiracy theories


yes



where does this post have to go then?


to somewhere else??

actually, it has everything to do with biology and genetics... its the friggin AIDS virus, you dumbass.

conspiracy theories are one thing, this is an hour and a half long of an in-depth presentation on video. did you even watch it? unless you're Johhny 5 from short circuit or something, in the time that it took for you to write your first reply, no, you couldn't have.

calm down mate,


no...i don't have realplayer installed, so i can't really watch it can I?

should I have? why didn't you give a short summary of this video then?


The site on which it is gave me the idea that it might be an conspiracy idea, this combined with the idea of AIDS as a biological warfare reinforced this.

the use of aids in biological warfare would be an ethical or political topic.
The theory that aids have been created as a biological warfare agent would be a conspiracy theory and can't be taken seriously.
How to turn aids into a biological agent, might be suitable subject.

so what is then?


edit: or maybe i am under the wrong impression what this forum is for. I thought it was slightly serious.

see, this is something i can actually respond to, thank you. :cool:


i realize the site isn't that great of a display, and i'm still skeptical as to the information in it-- i'd like to do my own research into it before i make any conclusions. however, it did raise a lot of questions. the video is from 1988 and the information could have been disproven by now, although i've read some other more recent articles that contain much of the same information.

Strecker basically says the information that textbooks and schools teach about AIDS could be very misguided due to the great possibility that the virus is the result of either an accidental or deliberate biological experiement. either way, he says, it's a manmade disease.

the end of the video lists his bibliography and it looks like he's done his homework. still, i'm gonna do my own research.

i wonder what the guy is up to now.

now, why can't one be serious about a conspiracy theory? there are true conspiracies. back in high school, i did a report in my 9th grade history class on Nixon's CREEP organization (the committee to re-elect the president). Nixon almost got impeached because the people were so outraged by his unlawful acts in the white house. i don't see how bringing up a radical idea means it should be dismissed or laughed at.

second of all, i was gonna give you a chance and you blew it with your edit. :p

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
if i was the moderator here I would move this thread to one of the subculture forums, or to the crap forum if we had it.

I set up a petition for a crap sub-forum and everyone thinks it is a bad idea… so that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

HIV is natural... it genome is natural and it is not very different from the simian version. So to conclude: Get over it!, bad thing happen for no good reason (for us humans) some times. If anything this is nature (or god/s) conspiracy for controlling the human surplus!

Even though I have 570Kbs band width I did not want ot set through a 1.5hr long video... so I read this instead http://www.inx.net/~carolynv/jmartin/strecker.htm

edit: using post as a secret link to whole attachments

Actually there is some research that points to AIDS being man made.

This site might interest some of you http://www.boydgraves.com

Also, just browsing the site to see if there is any new news, thought this might interest some people. "CONGRESSIONAL SCRUTINY INTENSIFIES CONCERNING G.A.O. 'LAB BIRTH OF AIDS' REPORT" (http://www.boydgraves.com/press/060302.html)

ok then...i'm biting.

I want to make a virus that I can use for biological warfare.
What kind of virus would I make? Let us see.

The incubation time should be short (not years or decades)

it should spread easily (blood-blood contact is not very effective)

I should have an antidote, otherwise we are in deep trouble (Of course HIV still hasn't)

I would like it to effect certain people (like the enemy, and last time i checked the sovietunion didn't have a higher frequency of unprotected homosexuals and heterosexual sex habits, drug users, etc, the risk groups)

should I continue?

why make HIV if you are interested in biological warfare?

well, first of all, people have posted some interesting links, thank guys.

spuriousmonkey, just remember that if we can't figure out a reason why, that doesn't mean it's not happening.

but, if you want my theory on it, if it was intentionally made for biowarfare, there must be a way to control it somehow. off the top of my head, there is at least 2 ways i can think of to control AIDS: only give it to an isolated group of people, and make sure you have drugs to cure or treat the symptoms.

there really could BE a cure, and it's kept secret, or, there could be NO cure and that is something being used to someone's advantage. for example, with no cure, once you have the disease, you can't escape and thus you die horribly. and since it's hard to spread, you'll die alone. Bush said in his address last night that AIDS in Africa is so bad and there so little funding that many people just get turned away from the doctor's office if they have AIDS-- not that we should trust everything Bush says, but that is something i have known about myself. i worked for the San Francisco AIDS Walk a couple years ago; learned a lot about the subject.

i'm seeing more and more people making this case, thanks to the internet. i honestly think there is more to it than just being an incurable disease. the whole scenario is very peculiar and in favor of the same people who are fighting for power.

just remember that if we can't figure out a reason why, that doesn't mean it's not happening

exactly!
also, just because we can't see the results and proof with our own eyes and bare hands, does not mean something hasn't been made/or happened . (see my previous cancer cure thread) . it has nothing to do with conspiracies...but, rather...understanding human nature; it has a very secretive side to it, and, i think everybody realizes that much. i hope.

i dunno, i think it DOES has something to do with conspiracies.

i don't understand why people shy away from a stupid word. conspiracies happen. and i see nobody responded to what i said about Nixon's administration.

i think people are just too afraid to admit that shit is fucked up when it comes to our government and the rest of the world. think outside of your country and you start seeing how uncooperative and bullying we are, then the idea of a conspiracy isn't hard to realize.

These is huge amounts of very direct evidence that It is natural... and very little circumstantial evidence that it is not. Using common logic I can put a fair bet that HIV was not made by humans in the mid 70's that only a few years before created the first recombinant organism. Making an artificial virus and making it in such a way that’s its genome would appear nature was not and still is not possible with today’s technology! Today we can make chimaeras but these thing’s genomes would reveal that it carries genes from different life forms and would most obviously be unnatural.

Originally posted by zechaeriah


spuriousmonkey, just remember that if we can't figure out a reason why, that doesn't mean it's not happening.


we scientists like to shave with occam's razor...maybe that's why we don't like these elaborate stories. And these stories seem to pop up mostly in the US which makes me believe it could be a cultural phenomenum.


http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html

Skeptic maganzine is also from the USofA!!!

Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Skeptic maganzine is also from the USofA!!!

skepticism might be a natural reaction to this cultural phenomenum of conspiracy theories. As a means of compensation.

I am born and raised in the USofA (not breed though). I don't believe in such crap but ya Americans are stupid: When 100 Million of your citizens are red necks what do you expect? Classical music hour followed by heated political debate or super-bowl show down with the only complete sentence uttered being: “Pass the beer, bob.” ???

if we are going to get into crack pot threorys about it being created what about this one (this is something i used to think about when i was younger and even MORE bitter about the world:p)

what if a group of scientists got together and felt that for the good of the world they had to make a virus to kill off humans to reduce the world population

then it WOULDNT have a cure because they wouldnt WANT it cured

no known virus is lethal to everybody.

they might make a virus that decimates the human population, but they would run a high risk of death themselves, unless they had a cure. Which would mean there would be a cure.

sounds better but not with 70's biotech, maybe today with enough funding, time and secrecy.

yep...if it was really that easy then it would have been done already by some cult with a deathwish. Why kill only yourself if you can kill the entire world

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
we scientists like to shave with occam's razor...maybe that's why we don't like these elaborate stories. And these stories seem to pop up mostly in the US which makes me believe it could be a cultural phenomenum.


http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/occam.html

yeah, they tried to give me that crap in high school too, and i thought to myself "if the simplest form of a theory is always better, doesn't that contradict doing any research for supporting evidence?" occam's razor is a cop-out for people who, when it comes time to look for alternative theories, are either too stuck up and biased about their own ideas, or simply too lazy.


Originally posted by WellCookedFetus

I am born and raised in the USofA (not breed though). I don't believe in such crap but ya Americans are stupid: When 100 Million of your citizens are red necks what do you expect? Classical music hour followed by heated political debate or super-bowl show down with the only complete sentence uttered being: “Pass the beer, bob.” ???



funny, i couldn't agree more on this issue.

i'm not supporting the idea that it's biowarfare, i'm just trying to give it a fair chance.

Originally posted by zechaeriah
yeah, they tried to give me that crap in high school too, and i thought to myself "if the simplest form of a theory is always better, doesn't that contradict doing any research for supporting evidence?"

i guess they didn't really teach you the real meaning of it then in high school. If there are two theories than the simplest one is probably true.

It doesn't mean that a simplified theory is more true than the same theory more complex.

now let us look at the facts:
Aids has been found in primates
Aids history has been well documented and everything seems to point towards natural causes.
Two websites claim conspiracy

i am going for theory number one.

what would you think is the primary evidence for the human origin of AIDS then?

The primary evidence for human origin of AIDS is the fact that it appeared over such a wide area of the world at the same time, and the doubling of cases figures (14 Months) they are always spouting would not account for the wide spread pervasiveness of the disease if it started with one accidental case.

AIDS Virus Traced to 1675
Newsday - July 11, 2000
Laurie Garrett, Staff Writer

Durban, South Africa-The AIDS virus most probably first jumped from chimpanzees to humans as early as 1675 and didn't establish itself as an epidemic strain in Africa until 1930, according to research presented yesterday at the 13th International AIDS Conference here.
The virus, HIV-1, is ancient, reported Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium. In collaboration with colleagues in France, Germany and Ireland, Vandamme devised a technique for tracing the family trees of viruses.
"The separation between SIVcpz [chimpanzee virus] and HIV was in 1675 to 1700," Vandamme told scientists. She said that theories on a more recent origin of HIV-1 epidemics in humans, "such as the one blaming vaccination with oral polio vaccine contaminated with SIV [chimp virus], seems very unlikely."
Vandamme's findings are important because they help explain not only how the world's worst recorded epidemic commenced, but also possibly where it is going and how fast. And in one respect they coincide with estimates reached independently at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In 1930, both research teams have found, the first M-Class form of HIV emerged in Africa.
Scientists don't, of course, have blood samples dating to 1675. The oldest known HIV sample dates to only 1959. So to figure out HIV's history, scientists need to establish what they call the molecular clock of the virus, or the rate at which it changes. But that's tough for HIV, because different strains of the virus today are mutating and evolving at divergent rates.
As for why HIV smoldered in humans invisibly for 300 years, Vandamme said, "A true explosion requires a new mode of transmission or modern behavior," such as use of non-sterile needles, non-sterile blood products and widespread promiscuous sexual behavior.
------
-so yes the AIDS disease is ‘man made’ but not quite the stuff of conspiracies.
-------
An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic.
Nature (02/05/98) Vol. 391, No. 6667, P. 594
Zhu, Tuofu; Korber, Bette T.; Nahinias, Andre J.; et al.

Abstract: Dr. Tuofu Zhu of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York and colleagues report the amplification and characterization of viral sequences of an HIV-1-seropositive plasma sample taken from an adult Bantu male in 1959 living in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The researchers studied 1,213 plasma samples obtained from Africa between 1959 and 1982; the 1959 sample tested positive for HIV-1 through immunoassay, immunoflourescence, Western blotting, and radioimmunoprecipitation methods. The plasma sample is the oldest confirmed case of HIV-1; the case of a Manchester sailor who died of an AIDS-like illness in 1959 was reported to be the oldest, but it has not been confirmed. The sample taken from the Bantu man has a viral sequence that lies near the ancestral node of subtypes B and D in the major group, suggesting that these HIV-1 subtypes may stem from a single introduction into Africa soon before 1959. The team notes, however, that "given the large genetic differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2, the divergence of these viruses could not have occurred in the late 1940s; that branching point must have come considerably earlier." The findings highlight the need for continued surveillance, they assert, noting the diversification of HIV over the past 40 to 50 years.


But it could have just been the aliens playing their little tricks again :D

William of Ockham... I'm starting to hate that monk.

Whatever that link may say, Ockham's Razor is not
If there are two theories than the simplest one is probably true.

It is "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Why is this important to you, zechaeriah? Well, because there are two theories being put forward, yours and that of the monkey:
The monkey: HIV came about without human intervention.
You: HIV was created by mean scientists.

The reason why Ockham's razor is important in this case is because we already believe/know that nearly all OTHER viruses came about without human intervention, so we don't have to "invent" nature over again to explain where HIV came from, in spurious' story.

For your theory to be correct we need to have a group of killer virus-making scientists, the existence of which is not proven. This is "multiplying entities", that is, inventing new agents to explain a phenomenon that can already be explained by existing agents, like the process that created all the other viruses.

William of Ockham wasn't saying "the simplest explanation is the truest," he was saying "don't invent new fairy godmothers to explain every new phenomenon."

So, if you were going to counter this argument, you should produce such evidence:
- documented evidence that viruses can be tailor-made to produce the symptoms of HIV
- documented evidence that cures for lethal diseases have been secretly withheld (not openly withheld, as with the HIV drug lawsuits)
- documented evidence of a government's intent to attack the entire world in some way like this - that is, THE WORLD, not just the US - that either shows
1) their willingness to sacrifice their own citizens
2) some plan for avoiding that sacrifice, or
3) a sufficient lack of foresight concerning this or some similar plan that they seem to honestly fail to understand that their biological war-agent could come back on them and wipe out their own country

This would provide an underpinning of previous precedent that would render the monkey's Ockham's razor argument invalid (relatively speaking of course).

weebee: Europe was hit very hard centuries ago by syphilis, which is passed largely by sexual contact as well. It was enough of an issue that religious institutions felt it necessary to address the subject. Ol' Nietzsche the Ubermensch contracted syphilis after having sex only once (so I'm told).

Certainly, syphilis is a horrible disease - it eats holes in your brain and organs until you go insane/die of organ failure.

But, if HIV really existed in the human population for 300 years before it became critical, it's not because of a change in our sexual behaviour at least, since sexually transmitted diseases weren't really that much less prevalent 300 years ago.

first of all, i don't go by ockham's razor, i've already said this. the reason being i don't see what is wrong with looking at more than one possibility to explain something, no matter how complex, no matter how strange it may be, especially when the truth has yet to emerge. see, i actually have what is called an "open mind", meaning, i don't dismiss ideas entirely just because they don't follow certain guidelines. i am not a scientist nor am i any sort of authority on AIDS. i do know a bit about it as i worked for the AIDS Walk in San Fran and i've done a bit of research into the origins. but anyway, if we still don't know the truth of it, then what does it hurt to explore all the range of possibilities? so fuck this ockham shit cuz what you're really saying to me when you bring it up is "i am a narrow-minded fool".

let me remind folks, too, that i still have not said whether i believe AIDS is manmade or not. all i've said is:

* i don't understand why people shy away from the word "conspiracy" when a) conspiracies happen and b) it accurately describes certain scenarios.

* i don't see why it is so hard to believe that there are scientists out there who do work for various governments and corporations because they want the money or because there are guns pointed at them. this shit happens, that is reality (not ALWAYS the reality, but in many cases it is so). i have friends who have been pulled from MIT into working for various branches of the military and can't get out of it now because of the pressure put on them to complete their terms and projects even though they don't believe in them. they've told me how they were coaxed into doing them in the first place, it's an insane world out there guys. people are assholes, from grassroots to the highest in power, and they stop at nothing to get their way.

* AIDS being created by man is a theory i've come across, this Strecker guy did a convincing job with his presentation and i've yet to see convincing arguments against his theories. but that doesn't mean i am siding with him, i just think he was on to something and people like Dr. Horowitz are keeping the info Strecker brought to the table alive before disinformation campaigns bury it. but i don't close off to all the other info out there.

so please do not take a side for me, that's just not fair. i can speak for myself, thank you.


now.. this Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium proposes HIV to be "ancient" and having jumped to man from chimps in 1675, yet the article doesn't go into depth about WHY she thinks these things-- WHERE IS HER EVIDENCE?? it says she's basing it on the "molecular clock of viruses" which is a THEORY, and even states that "scientists don't, of course have blood samples dating back to 1675" and then that it's tough to find the rate of change since there are new strains being discovered constantly. so...?? why is her research & theory any better than strecker's?

and i agree with BigBlueHead that promiscuous sexual behavior is not the cause of the outbreak. people are always, have always, and will always be humpin. in fact, Jim345 has brought up a good point that nobody is talking about.. i DID read that HIV started in more than one major city at the same time. any evidence of this from Jum345 or anyone else would be much appreciated cuz i'm having trouble finding it online now.

and weebee: "The team notes, however, that "given the large genetic differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2, the divergence of these viruses could not have occurred in the late 1940s; that branching point must have come considerably earlier." The findings highlight the need for continued surveillance, they assert, noting the diversification of HIV over the past 40 to 50 years."

yes, but why does this exclude humans from using or being the catalyst in the hybridization of ths virus? maybe part of the reason there are so many different strains of the virus is that man is involved?



here are some interesting links:
http://www.originofaids.com/
http://veederandld.20m.com/greports/42001b.html
http://www.rense.com/general45/cant.htm

1) This thread proposes that the HIV virus is man made. The first HIV sample is from 1957.
2) Riga Institute and Los Alamos National Laboratory both independently found that in 1930 the first M-Class form of HIV emerged in Africa.

So we’re looking for a mad scientist in Africa around the 1920’s.

The article lists three changes in behaviour; use of non-sterile needles, non-sterile blood products and widespread promiscuous sexual behaviour. As noted promiscuous sexual behaviour has not changed much (in the west) in the last 300 years, anyone want to comment on African sexuality, or are we just going to assume?

Non-sterilisation of needles were routinely used in vaccination campaigns by the French in central Africa; in 1916 one clinic in central Africa the used six needles to immunize more than 89,000 people against sleeping sickness in 1916. 1921-1934 the Congo-Ocean railway was built in the French Congo where more than 20,000 workers are thought to have died during the railway's construction, most from malnutrition. It ran through inhabited rain forest near the west equatorial coast--prime habitat for Pan troglodytes troglodytes (the Group M of the strain HIV-1 bares the closest genetic resemblance to a virus found naturally in the chimp subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes.)

The Congo-Ocean's eastern terminus in Brazzaville sits just across the river Congo from the city of Kinshasa, where the 1959 HIV-positive plasma sample was taken.

HIV-2 on the other hand is related to sooty mangabeys, a different sub species of chimp.
If humans were the carries (made by a mad scientist…) and developed HIV-1 and HIV-2 these would have then separately had to infect two different subspecies of chimp…It would be easier on my brain to assume that the mad scientist took these viruses from the chimps and infected humans, much like the French vaccination programs. . .

There are a lot of questions still unanswered by the ‘vaccination projects’ but they don’t seem so insurmountable that we need to invent a ‘mad scientist’.

I can’t open Strecker’s page. Could you post a written article which is peer reviewed?
thanks. In return I'll hunt out some of Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme articals.

1) This thread proposes that the HIV virus is man made. The first HIV sample is from 1957.

that is a blanket statement. it is more accurate to say that the Strecker Memorandum proposes that HIV has been man-made and released on the population as biological warfare. no one here has said HIV is man-made, much less the WHOLE THREAD.

this is the problem with you so-called scientists around here. you want facts and specificity yet when it's your turn you jumble it all together and mess the whole thing up!

:rolleyes:

here are some files to help with studying Strecker & AIDS:
http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/BIOLOGY/ (there's a few interesting reads here-- they're ascii text files, so just right-click and save as a text)
http://www.thule.org/strecker.html
http://www.umoja-research.com/strecker_memorandum.htm
http://www.umoja-research.com/bio-attack_doc.htm (much of strecker's evidence is noted here)

as far as a transcript of the strecker memorandum, i'm having trouble finding one as well. i am, however, working on making the video in other formats. it is available in real media format at www.thule.org/strecker.html

>this is the problem with you so-called scientists around here. you want facts and specificity yet when it's your turn you jumble it all together and mess the whole thing up!>

This thread starts with the statment 'AIDS is biowarfare'; I’m taking it that only humans engage in bio warfare, hence the implication that this thread proposes that AIDS and HIV is man made, unless you don’t link HIV with AIDS which would lead to a different discussion –I agree. I wasn’t saying that You propose, but that the tread is proposing an argument for discussion.

From the links I find the argument consists of the following

1) That HIV can pass through condoms ‘’holes’;
While holes large enough for HIV to pass through have been found in natural membrane condoms, latex condoms do not allow the HIV to pass through the condom unless the condom has been damaged or torn. http://www.safersex.org/condoms/work/ss6.4.html

2) Where has it been for the last 5000 years. AIDS as a Weapon of War by Dr. William Campbell Douglas, M.D.

In chimps.

3) The soviets accused the US of master mining the AIDS/HIV virus.

They also accused them of not landing on the moon…

So at the end of the article it comes to;

4) 1. The green velvet monkey of Africa doesn't get human AIDS. You
can't reproduce the disease in monkeys even by injecting AIDS virus directly into them.
2. After injecting the virus into monkeys, you can't transmit it to other monkeys, much less to humans.
3. Genetically, AIDS (HIV-1) is not even close to the monkey form of immunodeficiency virus.Ed. Note: For references on the three items above, see: Seale, Dr. John J.,Royal Society of Medicine, Sept. 1987, Seale, Dr. John J.,The Origin of AIDS -- International Conference on AIDS, Cairo, March 1988.]

4. AIDS started not in the villages but in the cities of Africa, where there are no wild monkeys.

5. The doubling time of AIDS infection being about 12 months, one monkey biting one native and then spreading the disease would have taken 20 years to reach a million cases. Seventy-five million Africans became infected practically simultaneously. At the same time, the disease became rampant in the U.S., Haiti and Brazil.
If the first case was in 1965 and the frist US cases were in the 1980’s…Interestingly Africa did not show infection until the upper classes became infected.

so in answer.....

‘Then came the conspiracy theorists. One of the first was British doctor John Seale, who published an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1985 that claimed the US Army had concocted HIV out of genetic material from viruses causing bovine leukemia, visna in sheep, lentiviruses from horses and goats, and human T-cell leukemia/lymphocyte virus. The recipe, Seale said, had been cooked up at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in 1977. Lying behind Seale's thesis were two articles that had appeared the same year in Literaturnaya Gazeta, the journal of the Soviet Writer's Union, and told much the same story. According to Professor S. Drozdov of the Research Institute of Poliomyelitis and Encephalitis in Moscow, the CIA had let the virus loose by testing it on federal prisoners in the USA and in the field in Africa.

None of these claims bore much relation to scientific or to historical facts. The earliest identified AIDS cases date back to 1959, when the concept of genetic coding was unknown. Reverse transcriptase was discovered in 1970, and retroviruses were discovered in people in 1978. But it was not until 1983 that the technique of polymerase chain reaction, which revolutionized research into and manipulation of DNA, was invented. Essentially the cloning technology that the 'invention' of HIV requires did not exist in 1977. In 1986, the Soviets admitted they had their own cases of AIDS, and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 the Soviet Academy of Sciences apologized for disseminating the notion that AIDS was an American invention, an idea that, it
admitted, had been inspired by the KGB. The US State Department had already concluded as much, and believed the accusations were designed to discredit the USA in developing countries.’ http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/jun/m23-016.shtml

Apart from the Dr Searle reference, which seems based on telling a good story without much scientific basis, I can’t find a reference to research. Did he ever prove that in the technology from 1980’s could use the ‘genetic material from viruses causing bovine leukemia, visna in sheep, lentiviruses from horses and goats, and human T-cell leukemia/lymphocyte virus’ to put together to form HIV-1? And then use the resulting viruse to infect human tissue? And how did he explain HIV-2?

I do sympathise the feeling in the 1980’s there was much alarm about where the mystery disease was from. The US and the Soviets were doing much which was hidden, but much like Iraq, most of it was on paper. The Strecker Memorandum needs to prove that the required technology was in existence, and that the research groups existed, and preferable eye witness testimony. The main reason I’m distasteful toward the Strecker Memorandrum is that I don’t see the need for it to explain the rise of HIV and AIDS, and the burden of proof is thus on those opposing the majority view of HIV and AIDS as a non-man made viruses.

Now on an interesting side point. There are some who would say that the Nazi testing never happened http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040127/323/ekfto.html has a good article on just how hard it is to prove that such actions took place.

alright, i apologize for my outburst. tho it should be obvious by reading people's responses why i react this way..

but while you raise interesting points, i don't see why we should stop looking at all the possibilities while there is still not enough evidence of where the disease came from. i mean, the fact that there are so many ideas of it's initial source shows just how much of a mystery it still is. you brought up this Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium and i refuted; she used a theory to describe the origins just like strecker and so many others did. nobody really has a clue, do they?

indeed, this thread is about more than just whether HIV is man-made or not-- it's about biowarfare. so i guess, since we have the type of govt that would lead us into war over lies and kill thousands of people as a result, why wouldn't they either invent or use a virus that already naturally occured as biowarfare? it may not have been the U.S. gov't. it could have been the supposed shadow gov't, or the KGB, or any other shady gov't agency from the world powers. i wonder if people started their search for origins with that in mind if they would come up with some interesting stuff. but i think most people doing the research are looking for a natural occurance instead, causing a differing bias in their thinking and thus possibly missing some key evidence. OR, that evidence may not exist anymore because whoever created it could have done a good job burying the story. it's been done before, why not in this scenario?

an interesting article: http://www.boydgraves.com/press/080502.html
and from the same man (boyd graves) http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart/
what he calles the SMOKING GUN of AIDS-- of course to download it you gotta give him money, and i stop believing anyone's testimony as soon as they want money from me... BUT.. it does raise a scary thought..

WHY DOES THE U.S. GOV'T HAVE A SECRET 'US SPECIAL VIRUS PROGRAM' ??

also, if this Gallo guy (http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/vcgallo.htm) not only holds a patent for the virus (http://www.rense.com/general13/inve.htm), but is the guy who supposedly discovered it in the first place... maybe we should be looking more into him, like who he works for, their track record, how much money he makes, what other projects he's done, that kind of stuff, and get an idea as to what kind of person he is. maybe he created it! who knows..

btw, earlier you referred to the conspiracy theory as "a mean scientist" creating hiv in a lab, now you post an article about jewish prisoners in Nazi germany being tested on (which enough testimony has been given to prove it happened, IMO). so you gotta admit, there are mean enough scientists out there, are there not?

I had to laugh. In world politics someone else has posed the article AIDS Virus Traced to 1675. :o

Picking up your following points;
1) the scientific community can’t prove where the HIV viruses came from.
Your quite right, The event has happened and the causes can’t be proven in hindsight, the scientist can only prove that the possible causes existed.

2) We don’t seem to be disagreeing about the 1959 sample containing HIV. However I don’t see that the technology was available at that time to make ‘man-made’ viruses. The earliest mention I know of ‘Using smallpox as a weapon was not unprecedented for the British military; Native Americans were the targets of attack earlier in the century. One infamous and well-documented case occurred in 1763 at Fort Pitt on the Pennsylvania frontier. British Gen. Jeffery Amherst ordered that blankets and handkerchiefs be taken from smallpox patients in the fort's infirmary and given to Delaware Indians at a peace-making parley.’ Untill around the mid 1960's it was natrually occuring viruses.

3) one of the web pages says ‘The scientific evidence is complete and compelling, the AIDS Virus is a designer bi-product of the U.S. Special Virus program. The Special Virus program was a federal virus development program that persisted in the United States from 1962 until 1978. The U.S. Special Virus was then added as 'compliment' to vaccine inoculations in Africa and Manhattan.’
HIV can’t be a bi-product of a program which only started in 1962.

>btw, earlier you referred to the conspiracy theory as "a mean scientist" creating hiv in a lab, now you post an article about jewish prisoners in Nazi germany being tested on (which enough testimony has been given to prove it happened, IMO). so you gotta admit, there are mean enough scientists out there, are there not?>

I meant to refer to ‘mad scientist’ Yes most people will accept that medical testing happened in Nazi Germany. What interests me is that what counts as evidence is highly subjective. The article is pushing the victims testimony to refute NeoNazis now, as if that is really going to change the mind of a brain washed person.

However the argument that AIDS is a man made disease rests, for me, on the availability of technology. I see the possibility that they could have done it in the middle of the 1960’s but not the early 1950’s.
The data also needs to be official, and not just CIA wishful thinking. (I can’t find where the flow chart data is taken from.)

Gallo is very interesting, and would be a fascinating project. ‘Prior to the AIDS epidemic, Gallo was the first to identify a human retrovirus and the only known human leukemia virus - HTLV - one of few known viruses shown to cause a human cancer. In 1976, he and his colleagues discovered Interleukin-2, which is a growth regulating substance now used as therapy in some cancers and sometimes AIDS. And in 1986, he and his group discovered the first new human herpes virus in more than 25 years (HHV-6), which was later shown to cause an infantile disease known as Roseola and currently is hypothesized as a strong suspect in the origin of multiple sclerosis.’ As far as I can gather from the articles the main issue with Gallo is that he published papers on retrovirus prior to discovering HIV. :confused:

By the way. The idea that HIV comes from Visna might be clarified by this;

Retroviruses have three subfamilies: Oncoviruses, Lentiviruses, and Spumaviruses. HTLV is a oncovirus, while the remainder are lentiviruses. The analysis of genetic sequences gives strong evidence for the evolution of lentiviruses. They apparently branched into the primate lentiviruses (HIV-1, HIV-2, and SIV), and the nonprimate lentiviruses (visna, BLV, EIAV, FIV, CAEV, etc.) Thus, HIV and visna have many similarities since they are both lentiviruses, but HIV and SIV are much more similar.

HIV was probably initially spread via I.V. drug use and sex. At the same time that HIV was just starting to enter into our news reports as Gay Related Immuno-Deficiency (G.R.I.D.), new hepatitis-B/C infections were peaking. Heroin was "hip" in the 1970s.

Today, new infections in women and men are equal. I'd like to know why it took 25 years for the infection rates in poor, minority women to equal the infection rates in all men (gay, bi, straight, and all races combined). There was no shortage of sexually transmitted diseases among heterosexuals back in the late 1970s.

In 1981 or 1982 Discover magazine ran a long article on G.R.I.D. that claimed that anal sex was far more risky for transmitting viruses than vaginal sex. Assuming that that is true, what accounts for the fact that today an equal number of women are becoming infected with HIV?

In 1981 or 1982 Discover magazine ran a long article on G.R.I.D. that claimed that anal sex was far more risky for transmitting viruses than vaginal sex. Assuming that that is true, what accounts for the fact that today an equal number of women are becoming infected with HIV?

Easy there are far more heterosexuals then homosexuals, once you got the virus spreading through a much larger population that is less aware or afraid of it ("it only happens to fags") then they catch up fast. Also heterosexuals have anal sex to. http://forums.guru3d.com/images/smilies/smileysex5.gif http://forums.guru3d.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_dead.gif

Today, new infections in women and men are equal. I'd like to know why it took 25 years for the infection rates in poor, minority women to equal the infection rates in all men (gay, bi, straight, and all races combined).

In which countries?

For 2003
• Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(3,4)
• Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)
• Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4) http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/aidsstat.htm

New infections; global 2000; children 2% women 41% men 47%
http://www.unaids.org/EN/other/functionalities/Search.asp

In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-infected women outnumber infected men by a ratio of more than 6-to-5. http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/AIDS/9911/23/aids.world/

So I guess your talking about Africa where the transition is generally heterosexual intercourse; A study in four African cities (Cotonou, Kisumu, Ndola and Yaoundé) revealed that the most common behavioural and biological factors in those cities with the highest HIV prevalence were: young age at women’s first sexual intercourse; young age at first marriage; age difference between spouses; the presence of HSV-2 infection and trichomoniasis (a sexually transmitted infection); and lack of male circumcision. http://www.unfpa.org/africa/hivaids.htm

http://www.aidsreviews.com:8000/2001/rev02/Epidemiology.pdf looks good if you want to look into the differences between HIV1 and HIV 2 (different transition rates from mother to child ect).

Easy there are far more heterosexuals then homosexuals, once you got the virus spreading through a much larger population that is less aware or afraid of it ("it only happens to fags") then they catch up fast. Also heterosexuals have anal sex to.

Assuming what you say is true, what prevented it from taking place 30 years ago, at the start of the HIV pandemic?

I came of age (puberty) in the 1970s. Everything was sex, Sex, SEX! It was common to see advertisements for massage parlors in "entertainment" papers throughout Madison, WI. There was at least one well advertised massage parlor right next to the state capital building - with men in business suits coming-and-going (pun intended). From the late 1960s to early 1970s, Madison had "The Blue Bus". It provided infectious disease "curb-service". All one had to do was put on a good disguise, wait on one of the designated street corners, and hop-on The Blue Bus. By the time I got to college, it had stopped running. But the jokes about it lingered for years. The point of this paragraph is that there was never a shortage of unprotected heterosexual activity at the start of the HIV pandemic.

Either something acccelerated the spread of HIV in gay men (contaminated vaccine, I.V. drug use, etc) OR something delayed the introduction of HIV into heterosexuals, OR there is a valid explanation for the (more than) 30 year delay of a HIV into heterosexuals.

In which countries?

For 2003
• Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.

• Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

• Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use.


WeeBee,
Thank you for the statistics. Here are the absolute #s

GENDER MEN WOMEN
------------------------------------
Homo aquired 16,800 + - = 16,800/year
Hetro aquired 4,200 + 9,000 = 13,200/year
I.V.D. aquired 7,000 + 3,000 = 10,000/year
------ ------- ------------
TOTAL 28,000 + 12,000 = 40,000/year

I was wrong about there being 50% men and 50% women
becoming HIV+ per year in America. But, with respect to
sexual activity spreading HIV (16,800 v. 13,200) the gap
isn't all that big.

So, given the small gap between heterosexually transmitted HIV and homosexually transmitted HIV, my original question still stands. Why did it take 30 years for HIV to show-up in heterosexual populations given that it CLEARLY is transmitted that way in our society?

The I.V. drug use looks to be the answer. We will never be able to get our hands on the hepatitis-B vaccine stocks of the 1970s. It was reported back in the early 1990s that attorneys for the large pharmaceutical companies that supplied vaccines to the world advised their clients to destroy their older vaccine stocks because of the risk that they would be found to be contaminated with who-knows-what.

The CDC web page has information on the Simian Virus #40 (SV-40) that contaminated tens of millions of polio vaccine doses of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The vaccine is suspected to be the cause of small increases in some cancers. I suspect that it was this fiasco that lead the attorneys to advise their clients to destroy old vaccine stocks.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/cancer/sv40-polio-cancer-facts.htm

WeeBee,
Thank you for the statistics. Here are the absolute #s

GENDER MEN WOMEN
------------------------------------
Homo aquired 16,800 + - = 16,800/year
Hetro aquired 4,200 + 9,000 = 13,200/year
I.V.D. aquired 7,000 + 3,000 = 10,000/year
------ ------- ------------
TOTAL 28,000 + 12,000 = 40,000/year



Hay
can you cite the numbers?

cheers

I spent prob. about 5 hours on it. As a scientific issue I don’t think its worth much more, but its quite interesting for its historical context over the cold war fear of viruses.

I agree that at the time (early 1980’s) people were worried about human viruses. I also agree that the US (and others) were working on viruses. What I’ve yet to see proven is that the US had the technical know how to create a new virus, and that they then infected African chimps and humans with this virus HIV.

I’d be interested in who you actually interviewed…. :p

Its scary that this thread is still up, what is even more scary though is that in virology class we were discussing this and to our horror a graph was displayed that showed that more people die from tobacco related illness then aids!!! Why was it that not an especially lethal cigarette was target at gays instead of this claim that the government made a virus to do it? It would have been far more effective and cheaper.

habit_forming,

Because if AIDS was carrier from Africa to America by gay man, thus it started out in the homosexual population first, is that not a more reasonable theory? I heard that many gay man go to Haiti to “party” and Haiti is consider the first place were aids traveled to America.Also it was a 3 year diffrence not 30 years sinse first heterosexual case of AIDS from the first (homosexual) case of AIDS.
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/health/CommunityHealth/pdfs/123101HIVTimeline.pdf

By the way to anyone that still believe this was man made tell me how it could have been made naturally with 1950's technology???
http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1998/SE980201.html

And why does the US government want to kill lions? :p
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0%2C13026%2C1145828%2C00.html



I must admit this thread is a bit of an ego amusement. I would how ever be interested in the technologies which people believe were available in the 1950's to create this new virus.

viruses have been made by people since the BC's, so how would it NOT be possible in the 1950s? it isn't as though they were technological genuses back in the BC's, so it would be easy to make viruses in the '50s if it was relatively easy to make viruses in the BC's.

furthermore, AIDS didn't come to America from a homosexual African; AIDS started in America and Africa at the same time--in America a white homosexual male got it--in Africa it was a heterosexual black male who got it, not a homosexual---so, explain that to me if the virus wasn't man made....
Hi,
Can you cite your claim that ‘viruses have been made by people since the BC's’. I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by ‘made’. Taking the blankets off sick people and dumping on an invading army is not ‘making’ a virus.

And can you also cite your case for ‘AIDS started in America and Africa at the same time’. Which ‘male’ are you referring to? :p

Thanks.

yeah, and i would like to see evidence of all this research you've done sci_geek_101. you seem so convinced, and if you can honestly write what you've written with that kind of conviction then surely you must be able to show something to back up your claims.

habit_forming,

Because if AIDS was carrier from Africa to America by gay man, thus it started out in the homosexual population first, is that not a more reasonable theory?

It's your premise that seems unreasonable. Why would ONLY homosexual men bring the virus into the homosexual population, when we know full well that heterosexuals were JUST as capable of spreading it at that time - extrapolating from the rate at which heterosexuals are spreading HIV today AND from the rate of many other STDs that were spreading among heterosexuals at the time. Your explanation doesn't account for the differences in the rates that HIV spread in those two groups. If HIV came from a country where an equal number of men and women carried the disease WHY would homosexual men - almost exclusively - get it during most of the first decade. It's that damned tell-tale monopolar SPIKE that gives me the impression that HIV was accelerated (somehow) into the homosexual community.

Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps ALL men are really bi-sexual by nature. Perhaps recently emigrated HIV+ African men allowed themselves to be "serviced" by homosexual men much more often then they could "score" a women.

Random chance habit_forming. Why does one man become a carrier of deadly disease instead of another man? Because that one guy just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My explanation works quit fine if you first note that in Africa far more heterosexuals our and were dieing of AIDS tehn homosexuals ever. Also the disease did start in africa it just was not notice there for decades until first world countries like the USofA noticed it at home. Just one person brought the disease over to the Americas and by random bad luck he was gay. Why does this explanation work better then some evil government conspiracy to kill off gays gone horribly wrong, because: first there is no evidence for that theory, yes the government was slow to move on it when they thought it was only a gay man’s disease, but that does not mean they started it. Second my theory is far more simple and plausible (if we remember occam’s razor) thus my theory is more likely.

i think there is plenty of evidence to support the theory that there are political figures responsible for anti-gay conspiracies. *ahem* GEORGE FREAKIN BUSH and his anti-gay marriage lobbying comes to mind.. add to his grand-dad having Nazi ties, his dad being head of the the shadiest group of people (CIA) on the planet, his ties with the skull & bones, bilderbergs and trilaterals, and you got a pretty good basis for the whole shadow-gov't-keepin-gays-down scenario.

All that evidence is circumstantial... you cannot prove the USofA government started spreading aids on purpose with that.

Wouldn't it be easier to round up all gays and shoot them?

yeah, but this way the "problem" kind of works itself out.

yeah, but this way the "problem" kind of works itself out.

What is the problem exactly?

They have sex with their people of their own gender who would never have sex with people of the other gender to start with.

It is a bit difficult to see what the problem is exactly?

It is not as if they are going to steal someone's girlfriend (unless they happen to be lesbians, but that would make your girlfriend not quite heterosexual either).


Ok..what is the problem with gays then.


Do they dress too well? Do you hate moustaches? :D

aaah we may not have a problem with gays, but many people do in fact hate gays (homophobias) and they hate by logic that we do not understand.

I think the problem is how unlikely it is. It’s not really plausible that those bigots would find an unknown virus from Africa and secretly use it to infect gays here in the states. To many very lucky chances would have to be made by the bigots to get this done, first of all finding HIV when no one else knew of it, second implementing the plan in top secret with the use of dozens if not hundreds of conspirators in high places and never a soul telling the truth or the millions of $ required not being noticed

Another problem that would interfer with this conspiracy is that the US government would probably have needed the help of the military to pull such a big operation off.

It is a known fact that the military is teeming with homosexuals and therefore I do not believe that even they would be stupid enough to unleash a nasty virus on potential mates and potential soldiers. :D

(put a smiley in again, otherwise I would be in trouble again)

Wouldn't it be easier to round up all gays and shoot them?

(sarcasm)
That was tried in Moses' (stoning) and Hitler's (gassing/shooting/starving) time. But, mother nature kept bringing more every year, and the gays eventually learned to act straight. No plan is perfect.
(end sarcasm)

Although I'm suspicious that HIV was spread by Nixon operatives, given his great hate for gays because of how they ruined a few of his favorite quaint Southern California coastal/vineyard towns, expressed in one of his infamous Whitehouse Tapes, I would suspect the following scenarios for the spread of HIV in order of highest suspicion:

1) IV drug use among gay/bi-sexual men in group settings at "clubs". I.V. drug use was especially prominent among musicians and entertainers back in the mid-late 1970s. Sharing needles was a "sign of trust." I've heard (2nd hand), from people who used to frequent these clubs, that open I.V. drug use was common.

2) accidentally contaminated hepatitis-B vaccine

3) purposefully contaminated hepatitis-B vaccine

My main concern is to discredit the idea that HIV was initially spread primarily through sex - and NOT to prove that there was a conspiracy to eliminate homosexuals.

But, I don't know how to "crunch the numbers" to invalidate a sexual spread of the disease. This is a rate (calculus) problem. I would need to prove that the rate within the homosexual community was initially much higher during some (undefined) period shortly after the hepatitis-B vaccine trials of the 1970s, and much lower in the homosexual community (say) a decade after the effects of a presumed vector that excellerated the spread HIV had ceased to exist.

I would need accurate numbers of the newly infected over the last twenty five years. I have heard that these numbers don't exist. We don't know if there are presently 850,000 or 3,000,000 HIV+ Americans. So, getting data from the past is out-of-the-question.

aaah we may not have a problem with gays, but many people do in fact hate gays (homophobias) and they hate by logic that we do not understand.

agreed. and there are people who are drunk on power and elite affiliations that might work in favor of anti-gay causes.


I think the problem is how unlikely it is. It’s not really plausible that those bigots would find an unknown virus from Africa and secretly use it to infect gays here in the states. To many very lucky chances would have to be made by the bigots to get this done, first of all finding HIV when no one else knew of it, second implementing the plan in top secret with the use of dozens if not hundreds of conspirators in high places and never a soul telling the truth or the millions of $ required not being noticed

the reason i don't find it so unlikely is that it's easy for me to think of all the things that are taboo in my own social circle and then to think of how some things that aren't ARE in others. for example, when you get to a high level of politricks, it's taboo to side with radicals and reactionaries even if you agree with their motives because then it makes you look like one of them. it's also taboo to talk about hanging out with hookers and dopers & taking bribes, even though everyone does it. those things are kept on the down-low within social circles until someone in another political party (or a journalist) finds out. everyone knows about this stuff but they don't say anything cuz they're on the same side. plus, one of the main tactics any political science major learns in lessons on leadership is your pokerface and how to play the game to get to the top. you don't win by being a whistleblower.

so why wouldn't it be taboo to admit that someone in a high position of power over you would make moves that would hurt members of the community? i think it happens all the time. maybe not to the extreme of what we're discussing here, but it happens.

as far as financial backing and the severity of spreading the AIDS virus goes, i think if it's truely man-made, or at least intentionally spread, a very VERY small group of people knew about it to begin with (maybe like 5 people tops??) so it's not like it's this HUGE conspiracy. by nature, the way gov't intelligence works is the whole need-to-know basis thing. there are many many MANY secrets that i am sure the general public has yet to find out about. i mean, isn't that what "classified documents" are about?? and if you're just a messenger, you don't know what is in the document you are holding if it's sealed, only the writer and the reader know. so, that's why it's easy to me to understand how secrets can be kept.

but as with any secret, it would probably be tough to keep a lid on the origins of AIDS if it's truly spread intentionally, and then obviously the secret has gotten out, so...

but, who could have paid to have it made? there are so many potential bidders, man. if you looked at what million or billionairs are involved with bilderbergs, skull & bones, trilaterals or other political conspiracy groups, there are many candidates. i don't understand why that is so hard to see. maybe i need to provide a list for you.

or maybe you you're overestimating how much it would cost? i'm not sure.. but i do know that money is not a factor to people who are truly in power.

you do have a point about getting their hands on the virus before anyone else did. but, if we're talking about a shadow gov't that has been around for centuries, then they've infilitrated every gov't in the world and are gonna have first dibs on anything new cuz they're everywhere (the world is a small place..) but also, maybe they made it and didn't discover it.

We have already gone over this: it is NOT mad made, its genome is natural its history is natural and far before any usable biotech was available, in fact we could not make the HIV now without it obviously being man made.

As for politics I don't even see what your getting at, have you seen politics lately like within the last 10 years??? its extremely partisan with each party trying to find what ever dirt on each other possible, heck Clinton was impeached for lying about fucking a intern! The Bush administration is under attack on what Clark said. How can you possible think a conspiracy like spreading HIV on purpose could stay under wraps???

To grow the virus cell culture vats are needed with specific cells, so a top secret biotech factory would be needed with a good percentage of the staff knowing full well that they aren’t growing the common cold in there. There is no way that only 5 people worldwide would know about this.

I never knew that AIDS began its ‘life’ as gay-related immunodeficiency disease—GRID.. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/collres/archives/ahp/chron1982.html

Between June 1, 1981, and September 15, 1982, CDC received reports of 593 cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).* Death occurred in 243 cases (41%)…..Approximately 75% of AIDS cases occured among homosexual or bisexual males (Table 3), among whom the reported prevalence of intravenous drug abuse was 12%. Among the 20% of known heterosexual cases (males and females), the prevalence of intravenous drug abuse was about 60%. http://www.aegis.com/pubs/mmwr/1982/MM3137.html

Why would homosexual men would 'tell the truth' about being gay in 1981 but lie about drug use to a greater extent than heterosexual men?

AIDS is a natural disease and simian to human crossover apparently occured over 400 years ago, though strangely enough, there were no epidemics until the 70's and 80's.

The first epidemics struck black Africa and Western gay communities. As both these groups were/are detested by certain powerful establishments, it is almost obvious that a perhaps modified form of AIDS was planted by third parties on purpose.

We have already gone over this: it is NOT mad made, its genome is natural its history is natural and far before any usable biotech was available, in fact we could not make the HIV now without it obviously being man made.

haha! :D now now, deadiraqifetus.. let's not get hot under collar again. it's just a messageboard, your ph.d in egotism isn't going to be taken away for keeping an open mind for a few moments..

you have apparently found the answer as to the origin of the HIV virus! show me! i'd like to see this...


As for politics I don't even see what your getting at, have you seen politics lately like within the last 10 years??? its extremely partisan with each party trying to find what ever dirt on each other possible, heck Clinton was impeached for lying about fucking a intern! The Bush administration is under attack on what Clark said. How can you possible think a conspiracy like spreading HIV on purpose could stay under wraps???


are you blind? i just explained to you how i think a conspiracy like that can stay under wraps. and anyway, i don't think it IS staying under wraps, i think people are figuring it out and truth has been leaked. but agian, i've already said this. i don't expect you to agree with me, but why are you asking me questions i've already answered? i'm confused. :rolleyes:

actually, i think it's kinda funny... the democrats get attacked by republicans for sex in the oval office whereas the republicans get attacked by democrats (and the rest of the world!) for ignoring signs that our country was to be attacked by terrorists & then going to war with the wrong country over it. doesn't really weigh out does it? i'm not democrat, but obviously the republican party is into dirty tricks whereas the democratic party is into getting to the bottom of things.

yes, i keep up with politics. i study a lot, obviously more than you since all you really know about is what's on CNN. have you ever actually read a book on political science? have you read the prince by machiavelli? what is your definition of right wing vs. left wing? where do think you fall on the spectrum? i'd be interested to know. cuz from the looks of it, i don't think you know shit about it. i bet you're just as jaded as my christian neighbors who think jesus is going to save them because they don't fart in church.

honestly, you barely have any argument besides "you're crazy!". gimme something good to go on and i'll have the debate with you, but this is kinda lame.


To grow the virus cell culture vats are needed with specific cells, so a top secret biotech factory would be needed with a good percentage of the staff knowing full well that they aren’t growing the common cold in there. There is no way that only 5 people worldwide would know about this.

yeah, but you're not really taking into account that those 5 people could be really smart. i have genius friends who can calculate extremely mind boggling engineering problems, make a sculpture out of clay, organize large group meetings single-handedly and ace tests all in the span of a few days and succede at every one of them. and they're still not the smartest people in the world. maybe there are people out there who have tons of money (def takes a genius to make their first million by the age of 21 in my opinion), degrees in biotech, business and political science and know enough about social engineering to pull it off. they could have told the people who they got to help them out lies. that's how gov't conspiracies work, they use lies and everyone who works for them is on a need-to-know basis... goddamn, i said this already, didn't i??

:rolleyes:

AIDS is a natural disease and simian to human crossover apparently occured over 400 years ago, though strangely enough, there were no epidemics until the 70's and 80's.

if you're referring to what weebee posted about Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium, i stand by my refutation that the so-called evidence for this is a THEORY, just like strecker's. please refer to my post regarding this in page 2.

from my response:
"Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium proposes HIV to be "ancient" and having jumped to man from chimps in 1675, yet the article doesn't go into depth about WHY she thinks these things-- WHERE IS HER EVIDENCE?? it says she's basing it on the "molecular clock of viruses" which is a THEORY, and even states that "scientists don't, of course have blood samples dating back to 1675" and then that it's tough to find the rate of change since there are new strains being discovered constantly. so...?? why is her research & theory any better than strecker's?"

People in central Africa who hunt monkeys and apes for food and trade are being infected with animal viruses and researchers fear their transmission could spark a future epidemic similar to AIDS.

Scientists who documented the transmission of a monkey virus to humans in Africa, called Friday for measures to end the hunting of wild primate populations to lessen any potential threat of new diseases in humans.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20040319/hl_nm/health_bushmeat_dc

I can see I have put you on a rather offensive and verbally insulting mood... this pleases me! http://forums.guru3d.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_approve.gif Did I piss you off? I’m sorry. http://forums.guru3d.com/images/smilies/icon_smile_bootyshake.gif Look up ad hominem one of these days. I have a tendency to no long listen to people when they start using fallacies in their arguments.

I placed many links providing evidence to my claims, please look them up in pervious post.

why is her research & theory any better than strecker's

because it fits with what is known about viruses and the technology which was available at the time….? Her theory provides the means for HIV spread, while I can’t find any info on how Strecker proposes HIV was made….

Say in 1980, when the first US infections started that the CIA figured out a virus had stared to spread in Africa and it was from monkeys …5 people would not have known about a group trying to make HIV.

First you’d need someone to go and catch the monkeys or human tissue specimens (one or two scientists, a couple of guides, someone to pay for it), then you’d need to isolate the virus (cell culture or animal house 10 odd people) , then you’d need to produce the viruses(a building (50 odd people), a lab (with a cover story (and the companies to develop what at that time was high tech equipment), technicians (labs don’t self clean), then you’d need someone to test them on (a monitoring system 10-20 people)…so minimally we’re talking about 75 people, hands on….not even thinking about the money trail…its not like you can go to Africa grab a monkey and take out some blood and inject it into people...

But please tell me how Strecker thinks it was made –technically!
:p

My god.
It would require an extreme ignorance of nature, and for that matter biology, to think aids was man made.
The origins? well it all began 4 billions years ago... catch my drift?

I’d disagree, on a technicality. HIV might be billons, but AIDS is firmly a 20th century understanding of a syndrome… :p

fetus, i'm not pissed off at all-- i've learned to take th epersonal things people say around here with a grain of salt. anyway, you talk about ignorance yet you don't read my posts and then try to tell me i'm wrong. maybe i made some good arguments, but you'll never know until you read what i wrote, so...

weebee, if you want to know more about strecker's theory, why don't you watch his video? i posted a link to it when i started this thread. i don't understand why you keep asking for information about it over and over when it's provided for you. this is really getting ridiculous here.

in fact, i'm beginning to wonder if any of you are worth taking seriously if you haven't watched the video. i mean, what's the point of even arguing something you don't even know anything about cuz you haven't studied it? the video is there, and it's free. if any of you are truly interested in this topic then the logical thing to do would be to set some time aside to go watch it (it's about 2 hours long and it's all him giving his dissertation), THEN come back and debate this with me. otherwise, all of this seems really pointless.

Because

1) it’s a video and I can’t open his webpages (tired again today) Anything I have read about it does not tell me how he thinks it technically was made

2) its not been peer reviewed and so in it’s current state has zero value, since I’m not going to spend the weeks time it would take to look into all his claims, and effectively peer review it.

3) I keep expecting people on this forum to ether interpreted data themselves or provide it in a form which is widely avaible and consumable (provide me a transcript or a summery of his claims…)

…call me annoying –I don’t care! :p

zechaeriah,

How do you know if I read your posts or not?

fetus, cuz you ask me questions i've already answered.

weebee, again, if you're not going review his dissertation then why argue it? i stand by my assertion that you're just being lazy. if you need real player to watch it, then go download it.

maybe the reason for there not being a lot of information on the subject is that it's a conspiracy scenario and people always shy away from those in mainstream science. what if, just what if you took the time to watch the video and decide for yourself. maybe there would be more info on the net about it.

regardless, i'll see what i can do to hook you up with info on it. if this link helps any... http://www.thule.org/brains/streck1.rm

zechaeriah,

and what question was that?

Random chance habit_forming. Why does one man become a carrier of deadly disease instead of another man? Because that one guy just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My explanation works quit fine if you first note that in Africa far more heterosexuals our and were dieing of AIDS tehn homosexuals ever.

WellCookedFetus,
My point is that HIV was spread via very NON-random event(s), given that it accelerated ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY into widespread geographically distant presumedly isolated areas of ONLY MALE homosexual populations. Random, by definition, implies that all segments of a community would become equally impacted by a problem. Twenty five years later, the number of homosexual HIV+ to heterosexual HIV+ is not close to being representative of the greater ratio of all homosexuals to all heterosexuals. Though, the rate of NEW infections is getting close to equal between them. This is VERY telling, and supports my point that heterosexuals WERE/ARE capable of spreading HIV, AND that HIV was accelerated into the homosexual population.

Why did HIV infect ALL major metropolitan centers of homosexual men very quickly? Why not just ONE or perhaps TWO major cities? Did the infection suddenly appear in all the cities that just so happened to be the sites were hepatitis-B vaccine(s) were being tested? Did the infection suddenly appear in all the major destination cities of emigrants from central Africa? Did the infection appear in all the major cities where gay male airline stewards could have a lay-over and get laid in the local bath houses, i.e., the hub cities of major airlines back in the late 1970s?

If just green eyed people became infected with HIV, could we chalk that up to "randomness?"

If it truely was random, heterosexuals would have "been in the wrong place at the wrong time" too - and in far larger numbers (10 to 50 times larger).

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that heterosexuals are highly promiscuous in their teens BEFORE they get married, while homosexuals NEVER get married and remain promiscuous throughout their life.

habit_forming,

but it did not spread “ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY” in “ONLY MALE” homosexual population, its started spreading exclusively in male and female Africans. And world wide HIV is just as common in heterosexuals as homosexuals per population ratio; here in the states it’s a different story.

by the way its random chance on who started spreading it not random in general, it was random chance that a homosexual male brought the infection from Africa, after that of course it spread in the homosexual male population at first as gay men usually don’t have sex with women, also lesbians have the lowest rate of spreading STDs (we can only wonder why :rolleyes: ).

Actually it was first detected in only San Francisco and New York, but because HIV takes years to become AIDS the disease had been spreading years before (in the 70’s) before it was detected by the time it was detected it was already country wide. Also look up into the theory of Gaetan Dugas as “patient zero”, a flight attendant who supposedly spread it between hundreds of homosexual across the states during the 70’s... which you managed to hit on.

but it did not spread “ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY” in “ONLY MALE” homosexual population, its started spreading exclusively in male and female Africans. And world wide HIV is just as common in heterosexuals as homosexuals per population ratio; here in the states it’s a different story.

Ya, I've read that "Doctors without borders", or a similar group (WHO?) was going to try massive antibiotic treatments to lower the rate of HIV infections. They observed that a huge percentage of people, in the areas of Africa that they studied, had open sores on their genitals which allowed HIV to spread much easier. So, I assume that open genital sores may have been responsible for much of the spread of HIV in Afirca. And it may be responsible for HIV's even distribution among heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Also look up into the theory of Gaetan Dugas as “patient zero”, a flight attendant who supposedly spread it between hundreds of homosexual across the states during the 70’s... which you managed to hit on.

Ya, I bought And the band played on, by Randy Shilts, as soon as it hit the stores. But, now there is some reason to doubt this: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4227

I'm amazed that "Adult Entertainment" centers are still licensed to operate, in many major metropolitan areas across our nation, that include backrooms specifically designed to facilitate sexual activity. I recently read on a news site (www.nytimes.com)? that California was reexamining whether to shut-down this industry. With 40,000 new cases each year... "Gee-whiz, Beaver, do ya think that's a good idea?" Duh!

Did you also ever hear the theory that having anal sex increases the chances of spreading STDs because it supposedly cause more lesions and wounds and thus more blood to blood transfer, maybe that’s why AIDS might spread faster in homosexual men then heterosexual men/women, also explains why most STDs spread slowest in lesbians.

Also I was aware of the controversial nature of Gaetan Dugas as “patient zero” I did refer to it as a fact?

zechaeriah,

and what question was that?

you asked me "How can you possible think a conspiracy like spreading HIV on purpose could stay under wraps" after i just explained it. you also have not watched the strecker memorandum yet, so i don't know why you're even posting all your refutations here.

What you explained was shown as fails by both me and weebee.

To grow the virus cell culture vats are needed with specific cells, so a top secret biotech factory would be needed with a good percentage of the staff knowing full well that they aren’t growing the common cold in there. There is no way that only 5 people worldwide would know about this.

and even more thoughly by weebee
First you’d need someone to go and catch the monkeys or human tissue specimens (one or two scientists, a couple of guides, someone to pay for it), then you’d need to isolate the virus (cell culture or animal house 10 odd people) , then you’d need to produce the viruses(a building (50 odd people), a lab (with a cover story (and the companies to develop what at that time was high tech equipment), technicians (labs don’t self clean), then you’d need someone to test them on (a monitoring system 10-20 people)…so minimally we’re talking about 75 people, hands on….not even thinking about the money trail…its not like you can go to Africa grab a monkey and take out some blood and inject it into people...

As you can see it does not matte how smart those 5 people are there is no way they could run a entire biotech factory.

Also I did read a version of the strecker memorandum presented by nature which was presented in virology class a few weeks ago, it was very neutral and allowed us to read it and judge it as carp on our own terms.

We also presented several references on the origins of HIV as evidence to our claim that it is a natural virus.

We also present evidence on how the technology was not available at the time or even today to make a virus like HIV.

Should I assume you did not read these?

alright, fine, let's forget the 5-guy scenario cuz i really am just being a devil's advocate here. i originally pulled that number up, if you read back, as a suggestion, not as my true assertion. (take note, i do this a lot for argument's sake).

my point lays more in the fact that a biotech factory has a minimum requirement of hands. what that is, maybe you could enlighten me. the other point i made is that people could be on a need-to-know basis, doing what they are told without asking questions for fear of losing their jobs, perhaps? i explained how this can happen easily with my previous post regarding friends of mine at MIT who got sucked into doing the gov't's dirty work.


Also I did read a version of the strecker memorandum presented by nature which was presented in virology class a few weeks ago, it was very neutral and allowed us to read it and judge it as carp on our own terms.


well then, why aren't you discussing it here?? this is the first i've heard of this and you're not going over all the points that are supposedly crap, and that is precisely what this thread is for!

this is what i mean about the laziness.. you wanna call me crazy or strecker crazy, but you won't go over all the points he made in his dissertation.


We also presented several references on the origins of HIV as evidence to our claim that it is a natural virus.


i only see two real references here. one being the THEORY presented by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme of the Riga Institute in Leuven, Belgium. she's using a theory to claim a natural origin of HIV is a fact. strecker on the other hand is doing the same thing but claiming HIV is manmade. (hopefully you'll see how i don't completely agree with strecker here, i again am just playing devil's advocate).

the other reference is weebee's post from january about the 1959 blood sample.

all your other references are blurbs about chimps and various diseases.

becauase only's weebee's reference is based on hard material fact (blood samples) that is the only real evidence for anything i am finding here.


We also present evidence on how the technology was not available at the time or even today to make a virus like HIV. Should I assume you did not read these?


where?? wtf?? this is simply a lie. you have yet to provide me with ANYTHING regarding lack of technology. maybe i missed the post?? please point me in the right direction here...

Did you also ever hear the theory that having anal sex increases the chances of spreading STDs because it supposedly cause more lesions and wounds and thus more blood to blood transfer, maybe that’s why AIDS might spread faster in homosexual men then heterosexual men/women, also explains why most STDs spread slowest in lesbians.

WellCookedFetus,
I still have (somewhere) the pre-Disney Discover magazine from 1981? or 1982? that covered this issue. It was WAY ahead of its time. The problem I have with it is that the number of new HIV infections in heterosexuals today is very close to the number of new HIV infections in homosexuals today.

Granted, there are ten to fifty times more heterosexuals than homosexuals. So, the "rate" of new infections in heterosexuals is still far below the rate in homosexuals. I don't doubt that this can be explained by anal v. vaginal sex.

What I can't explain is what accounts for the change in the rates of new infections in homo v. hetero over the past twenty five years.

Did homosexual population centers become saturated with HIV, at a time when "gay activists" were (falsely) claiming that community based "safer sex" campaigns were lowering the rate of new HIV infections? I'm saying that whenever a population center becomes saturated that the rate of new infections must slow or stop all by itself - regardless of any intervention. If the homosexual population centers became saturated, while heterosexual populations remained unsaturated, the rate of new infections in heterosexual populations was free to increase.

I'm not saying that I know why these two rates changed. I'm just wondering out loud. And I doubt the "gay activist" hype.

zechaeriah,

...wait a minute before I continue I want you to tell me where I called you "crazy"?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=515&ncid=721&e=9&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_re_af/libya_bulgaria_aids
Libya Postpones Verdict in HIV Trial
Thu Apr 15, 7:34 AM ET

By KHALED EL-DEEB, Associated Press Writer

BENGHAZI, Libya - A Libyan court on Thursday postponed a verdict in the high-profile trial of six Bulgarian medics accused of willfully infecting more than 400 children with HIV (news - web sites), the virus that causes AIDS (news - web sites).

Presiding Judge Fadlallah Sherif said the verdict was delayed until May 6 because one of the five judges on the panel was ill.

The Bulgarians, five nurses and a doctor, are charged with infecting the children with HIV through tainted blood. Twenty-three of the children reportedly have died of AIDS.

Prosecutors have demanded death sentences, insisting the medics intentionally infected the children with HIV-contaminated blood. All six have pleaded innocent.

Nine Libyan medics also are being tried for negligence, and international observers have been monitoring the trial.

Libyan police arrested the six in February 1999. They were in prison until September 2002, when a high tribunal in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, acquitted them of conspiracy charges and handed the case over to an ordinary criminal court. They were then placed under house arrest in Tripoli until being detained again when their trial recommenced in Benghazi in September, according to Bulgarian media reports.

Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, said poor hygiene at the Benghazi hospital likely led to the contamination, and estimated it happened in 1997 — more than a year before the Bulgarians were hired to work there.

But a commission of court-appointed Libyan doctors rejected the Western expert's testimony and said the Bulgarians willfully infected the children with the virus through blood transfusions.

Libyan authorities have backed away from initial allegations that the infections were part of a conspiracy by the CIA (news - web sites) and Israeli intelligence. They now say the six were experimenting with a cure when they infected the youngsters.

The Bulgarians have claimed they were tortured during police interrogation, saying they were jolted with electricity, beaten and jumped on. Two of the women said they were raped.

AIDS is not a conspiracy it is an agenda to control populations and hey presto, the truth is covered up, AIDS controls the population of Africa (50% are infected) and the satanists all sleep soundly.

A satanic agenda rules us - why else are pentagrams everywhere and references to the sun, cosmos, FreeMasons ruling NASA and so on? Like a bunch of semi retired men are at the cutting edge of space exploration! They are a SMOKESCREEN for that, real exploration that we have no clue about.

White humans were introduced to earth as a slave race to mine gold. Since their introduction, they have been slaves. In 2004 we pay 70% tax instead of mining gold - same thing, there is no time, just because we measure it or have the perception of measuring it does not mean it is reality.

The present is a gift.

We seem to have evolved and yet ancient cultures were many times more advanced than us, building pyramids etc but its the FreeMasons again that! Their square and compass is due to the geometry of the pyramid complex from an ariel view.

This is all provable. Next people will be saying the pyramids are a conspiracy or that they are made of cheese or something.

Like one man points out - the egyptians would have needed more stone to build ramps to make the pyramids than they needed to build the pyramids themselves.

As Jim Morrison once said "You're all a bunch of f**cking idiots". Me included it seems but I am re-discovering something at least, people should open their minds.

The CIA apparently is the biggest drugs dealer - they had 12 planes with a billion dollars worth of cocaine once, you wont see that on CNN!!! But the thing is, this is true, according to former narcotics agent (for the CIA) Michael Ruppert (Beyond The Wilderness video)

I cannot fit it all here but believe me, AIDS is an illusionary thing like most things are turning out to be in this world, the Federal Reserve and so forth, a total scam and it is totally provable that it is a scam, yet 'patriots' call it a conspiracy theory. Well how the F88K is a FACT a conspiracy? Hmmmm, am I going mad here, getting provable evidence mixed up with 'conspiracy theories'?.

Surely 'they' wouldnt scam us would they? Get a grip and wake up of course they have been since 1913 with the "Federal Reserve".

Please visit my site, it lists my crazy sounding opinions on the whole big picture, not just AIDS.

www.look.bz

Click the link and scroll down for these three:

flowchart.gif 26-Jun-2004 15:29 58k
flowchart72.GIF 26-Jun-2004 15:29 78k
flowchart72.tif 26-Jun-2004 15:29 178k

Any of those three images, they are all of the flowchart.

http://www.boydgraves.com/images/

Hope this helps

www.LOOK.bz