I know this has been discussed before. But i have never been in on the arguments.
First of all lets talk about how the american government view the growing worlds population.
At this time we all know about how america has just invaded iraq and are going to place there own government in there, which many of you are wrong to say that the prime reason for this was oil. The prime reason for this is ISRAEL. It was a consortium of usa,britain and ISRAEL that decided to do this war, but this is for another decussion. But it is also fundamental to how the hiv virus was first developed.
Back in the sixties the american government made a decision that the worlds growing population(mainly in 3rd countries) was a growing threat to national security of the united states.
You people out there may think how can population increases around the world can be a threat to a country like america?
well the amount of resourses that america has to pay in aid to these countries, is one prime example, of how it is not in the best interests of usa to have the 3rd world countries population ever increasing.
the american government at this time knew that is a waste of time trying to use things like education and forcing governments to do what they cannot implement. You see usa views many of the governments around the world as a waste of space and incapable of generating anything good for there own countries. Usa knows that these countries just cannot sustain massive populations and the american government does not want to foot the bill for countries like the ones you see in africa.
This is where they decided to take things into there own hands.
In the mid 1960's, america had a great knowledge of genetics and bio chemical warfare. america knows that biological warfare is a great alternative to nuclear missiles etc... They tell the world that at this present time the greatest dangers of chemical and biological warfare is just to crude a weapon, and cannot be really implemented on a mass scale.
But the american military found in the 60's that this was not the case. They found that chemical and biologal warfare was a viable alternative to nuclear weapons. You will find these programs are far more secret than even the nuclear programs that america has.
You see with the right knowledge biological warfare can and is a great weapon. Now i am not talking about anthrax and other forms that the public know about. I am talking about highly complex biolocal weapons that the american military made in these times.
Coming to the late 60's the american military had found a way of attacking the human immune system. And we all know what this was to become. Hiv was born, and do you want to know the cost to make this virus. It came to a grand total of no more than $200,000. This amount is nothing to the american governmet as we all know.
For anyone that wants to investigate this further, i would suggest, that the easiest way to get info on this program would be to travel to the former soviet union.
When the former soviet union broke up, the american government was not only afraid that all it's nuclear secrets and weapons would be sold to other countries. It knew that the soviet union had and still has a vast knowledge of what the usa government was doing. You will find today that there are people in the former soviet union that can explain the hiv program and they will be able to give you factual documents, on this program. like i say the american government tried to clean up all these secrets in the former soviet union, but i know for a fact that it failed.
you will find that the governments programs to these countries still has not changed since. USA just does not want to pay to sort out places like africa, and south america. like i said it views these peoples and places as a waste of time and space.
for any of you that disagree with me, there has never ever been a explanation to why the hiv virus came about. And for any one that has tried to do a professional investigation for the media, they have been told pointblank just to forget about it.
And there may also be some of you that want some sort of evidence.
You will find more circumstantual evidence out there than it would take a court of law to prosecute a man for murder. The info is out there in scraps, but it is there

So there you go $200,000 to kill countless millions and just how many kids have not come into the world because of this virus. It sounds like a cheap form of contraceptive for any country in anyones language.

Can you back this up ?

I mean, very strong rumours that the anthrax laced letters were u.s.-made by an american scientist on a personal vendetta, ...but HIV ?

Sources ?

i told you where to go if you want to find out anything that is top secret about america in my post. i donot have the resourses or the contacts in the western media to be able to bring this to the public. this story has been investigated by some media in the west, but like i say the people have been told to forget about it.

forget about anthrax, the american military knows this is not a viable weapon. but like i say the american military knows that bilogical weapons are and can be as good as nuclear weapons.

you see they put in into the media that anthrax is the most dangerous because they know that these programs are just as dangerous than even nuclear weapons. They need the world to believe that biological weapons are not a viable weapon. but as i explained america has weaponised biological warfare, but these secrets are even more classified than even the nuclear weapons. Because like i said with the right knowledge, biological weapons can be made that are as effective as nuclear weapons and at a fraction of the cost.

www.scraps.com\circumstantual.htm ???

can be more specific ?

if you have the time and resources i would tell you the only place you are going to find hard evidence is in russia. and for this sort of info, it will almost certainly cost a small fortune, knowing the way the russians handle any secret info

like i said the american will not want it to become public knowledge that any country with the right knowledge could make what are effectively nuclear weapons at a fraction of the cost.
and i say again anthrax is not a viable weapon.

Can I also buy overunity machines in Russia?

lol!!!!

yo, you lot are mad, its like so boring?! :p

There a few question that jump into mind , perhaps anybody who has done some research mught be able to help me out . We all know aids is there , and weither it has been created and by whom , that doesnt change the fact its there , and people make serious money of of it selling the drugs that "controll" the virus .

Now what i do know , is that the companies who fabricate these drugs that are sold to mostly the african population , have laws concerning them to be the only ones allowed to create these medicines , so that competition that starts selling shit cheaper isnt happening . What i wondered was how these firms exactly are connected with the USA , are they amerikan firms , does anyone have any info on them ?

Now back to the creation of HIV , the things i wonder are :
lets say it simply evolved , many say it evolved through homosexuals (at first) , but my first question would be there were many many gay men before 82 (i believe thats when those nYC guys were found with it right?) , how come they didnt get shit ?
I mean the greeks for instance were all over eachother back in the days , no aids there . Ofocurs perhaps before they could analyze what it is , people already had it . But aids is so massal , i couldnt imagine how such a thing would slip through the eyes of doctors , or are there mysterious diseases that killed millions in the past and are understood now ?

I find it hard to believe HIV evolved , like the plague . I mean for instance , the plague was helped alot by externel circumstances , shit relates to onanother . I believe that time people's sewer was equal to their front porch , but with aids nothing happened , only homosexuality , but that was there before en masse as well .

Who can shed some light on these possibilities ?

so Allahs_Mathematics at least you understand and have thought about this issue a little.

one of the main accepted reasons in the public arena to explain for the bringing about of aids, which is something obviously i and many others do not believe is the following. the government of the usa have put the following excuse for aids in the public view

remember this is just one reason we are told the virus sprung up, there are quite a few others that if you do a look on the internet you will find. but i would guess this following reason is accepted in the scientific community, but never has been proved or disproved.

They have said that the hiv virus which leads to aids came about probably because of a inucaltion giving to people in africa. the doctors and scientist have concluded without much evidence that this inucaltion somehow triggered the virus in people that was somehow dorment. remember the monkey connection that people talked about was all rubbish.

they have never explained how the gay community in the usa first contracted the virus.

you will find if you look on the internet(i have not really looked that hard), alot of circumstantual evidence that cannot be explained by the reasons we are being told. the various communties in usa that it effects the most, have loads of rumours within them, but like i say if someone tries in the media to investigate, they are told just don't bother.

there just is not a proper scientific reason why hiv sprung out of nowhere. and anyone like i say that have tried to investigate the matter in the media have just been told to forget it, so the public just have to accept what is clearly not the proper scientific reasons for the virus.

i don't need to say anything about the ethics in the medical community in the usa. the aids virus is big business for those companies in the usa. but this is not something i have looked into, so anything i say about the drug companies in america would just be hearsay. maybe someone like you say on the board would have further info on this

could u elaborate more on this : inucaltion

remember i said this was a theory put in the public domain, sort of disinformation if you like. if i remember rightly the inucaltion was supposed to be given to people in the early 1970's in africa. if i remember right it was something to do with the world health organisation inucalation programme in africa.
like i said i have not looked into this theory much, but you will find info on this theory on the net. i don't know where so i would not be able to point you to any websites. you see i have not looked on the net for the info, i do know it is there though. you have also gotta remember that with this subject there is alot of disinformation coming from the science community.
if you find any info, you can post it here on this site. i believe this theory i have told you is accepted in the science community.

The first cases were in the 50s thought so it dosent matter how good our bio-warfare was in the 60s.

i have never heard of cases in the 1950's. where do you get this info.
HIV as a biological weapon from what i understand was finalised in the late 60's. it was introduced into the public domain, in the early 70's.
if you want to contend these issues that is up to you,

First known HIV positive in 1959
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/

Originally posted by andy1033
At this time we all know about how america has just invaded iraq and are going to place there own government in there, which many of you are wrong to say that the prime reason for this was oil. The prime reason for this is ISRAEL. It was a consortium of usa,britain and ISRAEL that decided to do this war, but this is for another decussion. But it is also fundamental to how the hiv virus was first developed.
You do not connect this paragraph to HIV at all.

Back in the sixties the american government made a decision that the worlds growing population(mainly in 3rd countries) was a growing threat to national security of the united states.
You people out there may think how can population increases around the world can be a threat to a country like america?
well the amount of resourses that america has to pay in aid to these countries, is one prime example, of how it is not in the best interests of usa to have the 3rd world countries population ever increasing.
Actually cheap labor is in the US's best interest. You make it sound like the US has to pay these support costs, which are optional on our part.

the american government at this time knew that is a waste of time trying to use things like education and forcing governments to do what they cannot implement.
Yet they still tried?

You see usa views many of the governments around the world as a waste of space and incapable of generating anything good for there own countries. Usa knows that these countries just cannot sustain massive populations and the american government does not want to foot the bill for countries like the ones you see in africa.
Once again, it is not our responsibility to foot the bill. We do it by choice.

This is where they decided to take things into there own hands.
In the mid 1960's, america had a great knowledge of genetics and bio chemical warfare.
Everything I've seen was centered around refining existing diseases and infection methods. Not creating new domsday viruses.

america knows that biological warfare is a great alternative to nuclear missiles etc...
Well no. It is much more difficult to contain contagious agents then a nuclear missle. Especially when they agent can lay dormant as the victim moves to another country.

They tell the world that at this present time the greatest dangers of chemical and biological warfare is just to crude a weapon, and cannot be really implemented on a mass scale.
But the american military found in the 60's that this was not the case. They found that chemical and biologal warfare was a viable alternative to nuclear weapons. You will find these programs are far more secret than even the nuclear programs that america has.
Yet you know about them...

You see with the right knowledge biological warfare can and is a great weapon. Now i am not talking about anthrax and other forms that the public know about. I am talking about highly complex biolocal weapons that the american military made in these times.
Such as?

Coming to the late 60's the american military had found a way of attacking the human immune system. And we all know what this was to become. Hiv was born, and do you want to know the cost to make this virus. It came to a grand total of no more than $200,000.
$200,000? So they had 2 scientists come up with this thing in under a year? Or did they have the whole team they needed keep as unpaid slaves? Hell, you can't even fix a pothole for $200,000:D

This amount is nothing to the american governmet as we all know.
Yeah, it's also nothing to the scientists who must have been getting ripped off.

For anyone that wants to investigate this further, i would suggest, that the easiest way to get info on this program would be to travel to the former soviet union.
Why of course... honest old russia. They country that would parade all it's equipment around, and at the end drive all the tanks back around the block to make it look like they had more tanks then they did. But regardless, you must have 'got info on this program' from 'the former soviet union'. Where is it?

When the former soviet union broke up, the american government was not only afraid that all it's nuclear secrets and weapons would be sold to other countries. It knew that the soviet union had and still has a vast knowledge of what the usa government was doing. You will find today that there are people in the former soviet union that can explain the hiv program and they will be able to give you factual documents, on this program.
And the USA has people who think Elvis is alive and well, and was kidnapped by Russia.

like i say the american government tried to clean up all these secrets in the former soviet union, but i know for a fact that it failed.
Yet you have no evidence?

you will find that the governments programs to these countries still has not changed since. USA just does not want to pay to sort out places like africa, and south america. like i said it views these peoples and places as a waste of time and space.
If it doesn't want to pay, they it doesn't. It makes much more sense then creating a contagious virus which can travel back here, and releasing it without a cure. Oh, let me guess, they have a cure and just aren't releasing it?:rolleyes:

for any of you that disagree with me, there has never ever been a explanation to why the hiv virus came about.
Please explain to me where the common cold, sars, the flu, meningitis, and the black plague came from. What do you expect, "On may 15, 1956 a man got bitten by a monkey and was infected with a human varient of HIV.' How they hell are we supposed to know where the virus came from, when we didn't even know it existed yet.

And for any one that has tried to do a professional investigation for the media, they have been told pointblank just to forget about it.
Just like Russia abducting Elvis.

And there may also be some of you that want some sort of evidence.
Yup

You will find more circumstantual evidence out there than it would take a court of law to prosecute a man for murder. The info is out there in scraps, but it is there
*looks around* Perhaps you could point it out. I just found a ton of crackpot sites. Half of which also had to do with UFOs and elvis.

So there you go $200,000 to kill countless millions and just how many kids have not come into the world because of this virus. It sounds like a cheap form of contraceptive for any country in anyones language.
Or we could stop sending them aid. An even cheaper form of population control:bugeye:

that is good info to learn, but i know my story to be true. what that means for that story is anyones business.
how far would someone go to cover things up. that is what i said earlier where there is alot of disinformation, and that is the first time i seen that article. so the choice is yours, i know from personal experience who tends to be right more often then not, so you have to make the choice for yourselfs don't you.
all you can do is look at info you get, access the sources and how reliable they are, and make youre own conclusions.

i know from personal experience my story has a greater chance of being true, as like i have said that all we can really assess these stories are that how reliable the sources are. i also know to be true that the story i have put here, will not be touched by the various news media throughout the world, even though various people have tried.

thx Persol you are making this really interesting, i will answer youre questions about my post, i will probably post in a while.

Hello Neo. Do you know who this is? Yes...Morpheus. I know the question you ask, Neo. What is the Matrix? Do you want to know more, Neo? You can swallow the blue pill and go back to your regular life right now or you can swallow the red pill and follow the rabbit hole.

A grand conspiracy theory that I can only travel to Russia to find any sort of documentation to support your claim. Umm hum. And is that how you became privy to all this? And assuming the Russians do have such info, why shouldn't we assume that is was they that introduced the virus? They worked exstensively in biological research themselves.

Coldrake all i can do is open the debate, what conclusions you make are up to you. at the moment i am trying to answer Persol questions to my original post. you are right to assume what you did about the russians. but like i said when you are given this info like in any work of life, all you can do is assess the info and how reliable the source is. this is turning into a good debate, and we all know by the time we are finished that all of you and me will draw whatever conclusions.
so at least coldrake you are open to these possiblities that man made the hiv virus. and with the matrix quotes all i can say


LOL!!!!

Andy. My only point is when someone opens up with a claim on a forum, especially one as grandios and as sinister as the one you brought, they generally tend to provide some links to at least give some validity that there are others out there who have broached the subject and already published some researched material on it. Or if what you have is from your own published groundbreaking research you might scan your papers into a post. It's very hard to take such claims seriously without some published material to give it some substance.

i understand but like in all walks of life, it is not always the best way to do things like you said. from my experience you do things a certain way, which is a proven way. this may not be your way of working with this info.
for all you know and i understand your view, i may be part of the disinformation, that so many people are afraid of.
there are things that go on in this world which you understand, we don't know about. people always say that these people are protecting our freedoms and that the general public never are supposed to really understand how much work goes into protecting those freedoms.
but like i say, people know from personal experience how to handle information, and how to release such things to the public.
i would be surprised if you have not heard what i said today before, because all of it is out in the general domain of our society.
it is like the people that run our news stations and governments know what people will believe and what people won't. everyday people are analysing how the general public assess the info they are given. you would not believe the extent to which the security serices and media(these guys infringe our civil liberties everyday for this info) goto get this info on you.
So this is where forums like these come in, to get the truth out to the public.
so from personal experience i see this as a perfect way to get info out, it is a proven way to give info to the public.

Originally posted by andy1033
forget about anthrax, the american military knows this is not a viable weapon. but like i say the american military knows that bilogical weapons are and can be as good as nuclear weapons.Bollocks. Nuclear weapons are extremely useful in a military sense. Their power is controllable and they only affect a designated area. Biological weapons are grossly unpredictable, spread unchecked, and can quite easily backfire on the attacker. Even if modern militaries were equipped for biological warfare they would not engage in it. Far too unpredictable, not to mention the insidiousness of it.

I won't even begin to address the tinfoil conspiracy theory in the rest of this thread. To the logically competent reader it is self defeating and requires no refution.

Stokes Pennwalt- wrong nuclear weapons are not as good as biological weapons, and within no time at all humans will come to relise this. you ask stephen hawking how dangerous and controlable such weapons are

katavan
Disinformation is still information.
In every lie there is always some truth.

true, make your own conclusions

katavan
"If you are interested in conspiracies theories look up SARS.
Some have suggested if Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger pathologist at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (so thats what they call bioweapons division thesedays) didn't go digging up specimens for the 1918 Influenza, SARS would never have happened.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/influe.../drjeffrey.html
Have a field day with this conspiracy theory "

i have no idea about this, i can only comment on the things that i have proof on.

So this is where forums like these come in, to get the truth out to the public.
so from personal experience i see this as a perfect way to get info out, it is a proven way to give info to the public.

When I think of getting the 'truth' out to the public on a forum, I think of someone coming on here and broaching a new subject and then saying that there is plenty of information out there on the web if one wants to delve deeper. In this thread however, you toss out a bold claim and then announce that the only way to find out more about it is to travel to the former Soviet Union where the only know documents are secreted away. That doesn't exactly invite further research into exploring the possibility that this might be true. And it doesn't explain how you have all this information unless, A) you traveled to Russia, and while there, these documents fell into your lap, or B) you are a Russian agent attempting to spread disinformation, or C) a little voice in your head whispered it to you in a dream.

The point is, you tell me that this is "a proven way to get info out to the public," but at the same time tell me that there is virtually zero chance of me finding out anymore info on it short of making a trip to Moscow and convincing the Russians to allow me to peruse through government documents. Which means for me to actually find out more about your claim I'm literally beholden to you personally to provide me with any additional 'truths' you may have on it. Do you see my problem here?

also i tell you what else i have done, i have given this page address to various media and publications around the world so if they want to investigate further it is up to them(remember how i told you to get things into the public arena, things take time). but all i am saying that the info is out there. People like us have not got the resources or contacts in the media to bring this out through normal ways.
but this is a big scoop, which i doubt that the media will touch, because like i said that the media have been told not to touch upon these facts. it is up to you the general public to ask these questions, and you have a right to the answers what ever they are.
don't you think that science if i am wrong should be telling us where and how it developed but the people who want to investigate this cannot get anywhere, because of the powers of people who control these answers.

Since I seen an ad for the latest flu-jab in my local doctors I thought that drug companies might make a new new flu virus every year along with the jab that costs about £15 ($25).
When I've got time I'm going to write a screenplay about this theory.

I suspect Aids has been around for a long time even before this century. Its just that because Africa was not westernized that we didnt hear about it.

Also what kind of weapon takes 10 years to kill somebody? that would be the shittiest weapon in the world.

Originally posted by Mitch1984
Since I seen an ad for the latest flu-jab in my local doctors I thought that drug companies might make a new new flu virus every year along with the jab that costs about £15 ($25).
When I've got time I'm going to write a screenplay about this theory.

Its because its a retro virus anybody with an MD should be able to tell you this. It uses your own cellular wall to coat itself with. That way its more suseptibel to mutations and can change.

Aids may have been around longer...South Africa might have been where it made the transfer to western civilisation???

Many african blacks worked in south africa mining industry and as truckers. Far away from their wifes and familly, prostitution flourishes.... Also in south africa, a clubbing scene and a gay scene (call it western civilisation) and naturally them prostitutes...

As far as some past communists labeled the disease as a decadent capitalist exportproduct an alternative route might as well be the cubans that fought in namibia against south-africa, raping the local girls, getting more than they bargained for...

Who knows?

Yeah I feel spooked talking about this I could mysteriously get killed by the CIA or summat.
I don't know maybe our minds are fueled by conspicery theories and speculation or are we just aware of the fact that there is alot that could or is hidden from us.
Like if I had a doner card I wouldn't send anyone just incase a big jeep accidently on purpose rams my car (haven't got a car yet) and my life support machine is turned off when I'm not dead yet.
I just wouldn't feel comfortable letting people know.
The thought of my parents being spies in the cold war and them being given new ID's and life stories makes me laugh but YOU NEVER KNOW!

"Also what kind of weapon takes 10 years to kill somebody? that would be the shittiest weapon in the world."

it is not intended as a weapon as in the ways of war. the best way i can describe it that it was brought into the human arena as a sort of mass contraceptive.

usa view the people of the 3rd world as uneducated and incapable of making the right decisions in there lifes. now the usa is not going to go over to africa and nuke the whole place is it, to get rid of the problems these so called uneducated people have brought to image of usa. it needed a way of changing the mindset of people in these countries. you have to remember that everytime there is something like famines or something in africa, who are asked for aid. the bulk of it will come from america, and america see that as a shitty deal and a real threat to there national security

consider how many people the aids virus has stopped from being born in these countries, and what is going to be the life expectancy of the people in the 3rd with the hiv virus.
because you have to remember that the way the hiv virus is contracted it is more probable that people in the 3rd world will catch the virus rather then the 1st world countries.

"Aids may have been around longer...South Africa might have been where it made the transfer to western civilisation??? "

all this was to open the suggestion to the public and for the news media to have a chance if they wanted to investigate where the hiv virus did come from. don't you think that this is the sort of thing that the news media should be investigating. all i would say to them is prove me wrong, investigate it and put the investigation in the public domain. like there must be foreign news media that are not afraid of the grip of the usa, that have the power and resources to do such an investigation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yeah I feel spooked talking about this I could mysteriously get killed by the CIA or summat. "

this info is out there already but it needs a lot of resources that normal everyday people don't have to bring to the public domain. and if the americans like they say, did not make the virus why the hell would the cia would even be interested in this discussion. i am just using the same methods that they use to bring info to the public. all they have to say is everything is hearsay and circumstantual. i am sure they are watching this post, but hey no media is going to investigate it so why are they worried

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't know maybe our minds are fueled by conspicery theories"

if so why can't the media be allowed to investigate it. it is a free world after all(or is it)

Originally posted by andy1033
don't you think that this is the sort of thing that the news media should be investigating. all i would say to them is prove me wrong, investigate it and put the investigation in the public domain. like there must be foreign news media that are not afraid of the grip of the usa, that have the power and resources to do such an investigation.
Media will usually not investigate a far-fetched claim with no proof, and a motive that doesn't make sense.

i am sure they are watching this post, but hey no media is going to investigate it so why are they worried
I doubt it. There are thousands of forums on the net, and this post has no proof behind it. Even if it was true, they wouldn't be worried.

if so why can't the media be allowed to investigate it. it is a free world after all(or is it)
They are free to investigate it, but they probably won't see the need to.

Persol-Media will usually not investigate a far-fetched claim with no proof, and a motive that doesn't make sense.

wrong again - this was something the news media have tried to investigate


-----------------------------------------------------------------

persol-I doubt it. There are thousands of forums on the net, and this post has no proof behind it. Even if it was true, they wouldn't be worried.

i was replying to a post by Mitch1984, in which he joked about being killed by the cia if he had started this discussion


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

persol-They are free to investigate it, but they probably won't see the need to.

see my first reply in this post. all i am asking for is the media to be let to investigate this claim if they want. it is up to the general public to ask these questions of there media.

Originally posted by andy1033
Stokes Pennwalt- wrong nuclear weapons are not as good as biological weapons, and within no time at all humans will come to relise this. you ask stephen hawking how dangerous and controlable such weapons are
Aside from being extremely difficult to follow, your argument fails to address the points of mine. You lose.

what points did you make Stokes Pennwalt. all you said and i quote

"Bollocks"

lol!!!!!!!!!

i take it from your website that you are a member of that company. and if you are from such a company, can you not have some better arguments.

for those who don't know his website is for a company related to the american defence industry. so in effect he is speaking on behalf of the usa government on the issue.

do you know about any secret biological warfare programs, or are you just a bystander, just on the outside of it all.

i know you cannot say to much about anything, but just tell us something that would indicate that you would have an insider knowledge

Hes one of them! Put on your tinfoil hats or else he will steal our thoughts!

Why on earth would we make this virus when we can simply get rid of people other ways.

We did not have the technology in the 50s to make this.

If the US can't keep the President BJ a secret I doubt we can keep this a secret.

Originally posted by andy1033
what points did you make Stokes Pennwalt. all you said and i quote

"Bollocks"

lol!!!!!!!!!

i take it from your website that you are a member of that company.
I'll be nice and afford you the luxury of repeating myself.

Biological weapons are useless to a modern military force. They are highly unpredictable and stand a good chance of reflashing in the face of the offender if they are used. In other words, a virus unleashed on an enemy force in a tactical environment will not only not have an immediate effect, it will also have lingering, unpredictable effects.

Nuclear weapons, OTOH, can be controlled precisely. Their bursting, deployment, and edge-of-effect zone can be calculated well in advance and tightly controlled.

You said biological weapons are "better". If you mean more frightening or more disatrous, I agree. From a military standpoint they are not "better", they are inferior to anything in modern arsenals, for example.

Yes, I work for Raytheon's missile defense division.

salty-"If the US can't keep the President BJ a secret I doubt we can keep this a secret."

don't you think that everything that the president does has to be monitored. isn't it to dangerous to let people run around with all that power, and not know what they are doing.
whatever happened to bill clinton, he would have understood, that whoever shopped him it would have been from the defence department.

Stokes Pennwalt-Biological weapons are useless to a modern military force. They are highly unpredictable and stand a good chance of reflashing in the face of the offender if they are used. In other words, a virus unleashed on an enemy force in a tactical environment will not only not have an immediate effect, it will also have lingering, unpredictable effects.


working for the missile defense division, you would understand that you have secrets that only you have, or otherwise that technology would get into the hands of other countries. am i not correct there. so knowing how the defence community works, is it not a possibilty that other departments can do things that you have not heard off.
and in your above paragraph youre talking about what is generally accepted as the public view of biological weapons. i fully understand that if you had a missile filled with anthrax as we understand it, most of the anthrax would not last the explosion. and you would probably know that america done many tests on such missiles on the pacific islands.
but here i am not talking about anthrax or what the public know about biological weapons. these are crude weapons at best, and like you say are not very good in the military arena.
but i am not talking about the military arena here. i am talking about a virus that was giving to humans, and the american government knew that there was a fair chance, from the way that they knew the virus would be transmitted that it would be mostly uneducated people that would catch it. from what i understand they knew that it would have a more dramatic effect on the 3rd world than in the developed countries like youre own.

How would we make it in the early 50s though?

if you read my post i state that i think that the hiv virus was developed in the late 60's, and implemented into the human population in the early 70's.
i disagree with the statement that it was found in a man in the 50's. if you read my posts i said you people have to make your own conclusion, about whether the statements here are what you want to believe.

why do you lot care about HIV so much... its just a thing of life. why make a arguement about it:confused:

xJonz-Admirerx - i know that this post does not really matter because whatever the truth is, the media is never ever going to be able to report it. so you are right in saying that it is just life, but hey i have certainly enjoyed this discussion, i don't know about the others who have read this.

Ok if you believe that then there is no point in posting because you will not even admit to any kind of proof. Even thought I actually have sources and you just have a hunch and tin foil hat you will never give up on your crussade to find something that does not exist.

what i meant was that this post in the big scheme of things does not matter. but in terms of the board it is a good discussion and should be addressed. but we all know that the media will never be allowed to post such a story(which i still contend is true). even the tabloid newspapers and magazines would not touch it, because like i say decent western media have tried to investigate this claim, but in the west there is nothing the media can do. there is proof out there but like i say it needs a proper investigation by science and the media alike, and all i am saying although it is true, it will never be allowed out in the public domain.

just ask yourself this. How many people do you think in the public worldwide have actually asked themselves if this was manmade?

like there are many people in this world that know stuff that is true, and know how the public are lied to. but then when you look at that situation which one out of the two- (1)the people who know the truth) or (2)the general public) actually know the truth. it is just one of lifes paradoxes.

It was more like $500,000 in todays money. The group that pushed for such tools was the CSC.
To speak to close the issue and people involved is still subject to the death penalty.

So it only took 5 scientists a year to make it? Not much better.

One thing that has always puzzled me about aids in the USA. Why were the people diagnosed with the aids virus not isolated, and put in quarantine?? It was a deadly incurable virus.

Was it because it was only infecting gay people?? Was someone trying to kill off the drug addicts?? Or possibly did the pharmaceutical companies think they could come up with a cure that would earn them billions??

The CDC announced in the early eighties that they predicted there would be 50,000 aids cases in the USA and then the disease would "run its course" (they sure as hell were wiong)!! And aids now is spread during heterosexual sex, especially to women.

A quarantine would have immediately stopped the epidemic in the USA. People who contract the SARS virus "ARE" to be quarantined, even though SARS has a high survival rate.

As for the origins of aids, and based on information available at the time, I came to the conclusion many years ago that aids at worst was developed to destroy the black population of Africa so that some world power could acquire Africa's vast natural resourses. Or possibly ,and nearly as bad , it was to be a means of population control.

But I have never figured out is why it was allowed to spread in modern countries when it could have been easily stopped in the early years of its spread.

First off aids was consider "gay cancer" heterosexuals didn't think they would have to worry about it. At the time to people were not nice to gay people for instant they thought of it as an illness not a lifestyle.

SARS you cant wear a condom, stay away from heroine and be fine. You have to give up air. Which I am personaly addicted to.

We don't quarintine because we have to dive deep into a persons personal life. Its not an imediate threat unless you are having unprotected sex or sharing needles with them.

But it is an immediate threat to heterosexuals now. And we have always know that viruses mutate and change constantly. Why did we look the other way with something that dangerous, Unless of course it was intentional?

We dont have the jurisdiction to what nations like Cuba did. Its also not an imediate threat unless you exhange bodily fluids with others alot.

Originally posted by Don Hakman
To speak to close the issue and people involved is still subject to the death penalty.

to true, so why is this, are they afraid of the answers people will find.
surely the american government should only laugh this post of, but as we said why would it be a threat to national security if what i was saying here was not true, people have been discussing this for a while on the web i believe.
like i said why is the western press censored on the issue, surely the whole human race has a right if i am wrong to here an actual factual scientific study is being done and released to the public, but this has never been done. we get bits here and there, with no real hard facts.

look like i said earlier all this, is a discussion on a board, that will maybe reach the eyes of say 500 people. what is that in the realms of the human race of 6 billion. whether the government think this is true or not the amount of people that read the forum should only be nothing, the government knows how to handle truths like these. on the internet everyday people are putting up info on the web, whether true or false it is still there. but with disinfo the truth gets hidden away.
i know there are people on this board that have looked into this issue on the web. but like i say i have not looked into it on the web, so any extra info whether true or false is well appreciated.

we know as i said yesterday that there is at least one person from a top military company in the usa that has spoken on this thread. another thing what i did was to send this page to a person at foxnews, they did of course, give this page address over to the authorites.
but hey everything i have said here has been out there for a long time, and we know the story will never come out, so i don't know why the person at foxnews did that. remember this is just a discussion, that has been talked about all over the web, and there must be countless pages on the subject over the years, but as i say i have not looked on the web.

it is amazing to think that with something that is true, you have to write some sort of disclaimer!!!

but hey as we all know, we live in this great free world, where there is such a thing as free speech NOT

So where's your reply to my original post where I pointed out question/problems about your theory?

"its no immediate threat unless you exchange body fluids with others a lot."

Aids is now an immediate threat for all women!! And not just in Africa. This new threat is quickly spreading to ; the western world, China, and India.

It is also possible that the aids virus could mutate to a form that spreads like the commom cold! Should just wait until that happens??

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1993/LT930603.html

http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20021127aids1127p2.asp

No, AIDS is still not an immediate threat. Rape is, and HIV may be a side-effect. Very simply, don't exchange body fluids, don't catch HIV.

As for spreading like the common cold, its a good ways off. There are many other viruses which are much more deadly if they make this mutation.

Right now AIDS is easily preventable, and if these precautions are taken, not very contagious.

Apparently you didnt bother to read the links. Would you like for me to provide a link on "unsafe sex in our teenage population" HELL you would't bother to read it anyway.

Originally posted by justiceusa
Apparently you didnt bother to read the links. Would you like for me to provide a link on "unsafe sex in our teenage population" HELL you would't bother to read it anyway. Well yeah, I did read them. But thanks for assuming otherwise. Very simply, if you worried about catching AIDS, don't have sex. If you do feel the need to have sex, use protection. I don't see the problem here.

You act like AIDS is the only problem. Even if we took care of it, there are many other sexually transmitted diseases.

How about the little girl dosent have sex. Most women that age don't even have orgasms during sex so there is no point.

Im more worried about stuff that will probably kill me like a car accident.

You guys act like AIDS is only transmitted to sluts and gay people. How about an innocent women that only sleeps with her husband who gets it from her cheating husband. How about having a small cut in your feet and going to the pool and contracting it that way. How about being admitted to a hospital and contracting from any injections, nurse, ect....

AIDS is a horrible diseace and all efforts and money should be spend on finding treatment... We sure can afford it, seeing how much we spend on bombs that are destroyed in seconds without accomplishing anything.

i think we are getting away from the original topic question.

Persol- i will look over your post on tuesday, and post the answers then, it is just to late now

hmm so it appears you two are only worried about yourselves. Do you have children or grand children?? If so you are merely leaving the problem for them to solve, or suffer from.

Aids is no closer to a cure than it was 20 years ago. Sure their are drugs that prolong the patients lives, but it also prolongs the time span during which they can transmit the disease to your grandaughter.

Have either of you at any time in your life ever had spontaneous unprotected sex??

Did you know that anal sex has become popular among younger heterosexuals??

I see a, don't look at the monster and it will go away, scenario in your replies.

Originally posted by heflores
You guys act like AIDS is only transmitted to sluts and gay people. How about an innocent women that only sleeps with her husband who gets it from her cheating husband.
You are correct, but once again AIDS is a symptom and not a cause. I'm not saying that we should be searching for a cure, but that the majority of the population who catches it shouldn't. There is no reason teenagers should be having sex, let alone unprotected... the husband thing is simply a matter of trust.

How about having a small cut in your feet and going to the pool and contracting it that way.
The chances of this are so infitesimally small as to not matter. That's why they chemically treat the water in pools.

How about being admitted to a hospital and contracting from any injections, nurse, ect...
Once again a fairly small chance (although not as small as the pool thing).

AIDS is a horrible diseace and all efforts and money should be spend on finding treatment... We sure can afford it, seeing how much we spend on bombs that are destroyed in seconds without accomplishing anything.
Yes, but this does not make it and 'immediate threat' or created by man.

Originally posted by newguy
hmm so it appears you two are only worried about yourselves. Do you have children or grand children?? If so you are merely leaving the problem for them to solve, or suffer from.
It's not about leaving the problem for them to solve, but people calling this an 'immediate threat'. The children need to be educated. Say "this is how you catch AIDS", and "do not do these things". Then "if you must do these things, do them safely".

Aids is no closer to a cure than it was 20 years ago. Sure their are drugs that prolong the patients lives, but it also prolongs the time span during which they can transmit the disease to your grandaughter.
The chances of my granddaughter marrying a man who has AIDS, and her not figuring it out are fairly small.

Have either of you at any time in your life ever had spontaneous unprotected sex??
Not I. Condoms fit in a wallet, it's not that hard to carry them around. The times when I've been out of town without protection I've stopped at the drug store to get some if needed.

Did you know that anal sex has become popular among younger heterosexuals??
Yes. This falls under education.

I see a, don't look at the monster and it will go away, scenario in your replies.
No. I was simply stating that for the time being education is the best (and only) way of slowing the spread until we have a cure. It is not as immediate a threat as some have been posting. We are not going to wake up tommorrow and suddenly catch it like the common cold.

I agree with a lot of your previous post.

I don't believe that I insinuated that aids is an immediate threat, only that it has been persistent, and that a new strain of the disease is infecting heterosexuals.

And that new stain is spreading rapidly out of Africa. Any disease that is unstoppable , incurable, and mutating is a potential threat.
When the point arrises that it becomes an immediate threat, it will be too late to do anything about it.


So far education has slowed ,but not stopped the spread of aids, even in America.

My original post on this thread was about putting a quarantine on aids patients in this country during the 1980's. That definitely would have stopped it.
Instead we have spent billions on research that has accomplished very little. A quarantine now would be seen as politically incorrect.

There has been more money spent on aids research than on cancer research in recent years, and that angers me. Unlike aids cancer can not be easily prevented.

I think I started out trying to make the point that an early quarrantine on aids victims would have saved billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.. Somehow my original intent become lost in the shuffle.

Nobody is going to sigh up to be an exile. therefore nobody will test themselves for aids. You would have more people just like ehh i might have aids but i might not. To do what Cuba did you would have to force it. Its not an imediate threat so you can't.

As I understand the Aids problem..

It was a result of a vaccine produced in Africa.. For measles or some such problem..

This vaccine should have been produced useing the Madagascar monkey as they do not carry the disease..

Due to having a very limited budget, the African ( west I believe ) country used the local monkey that did carry the disease to produce the vaccine..

Sounds plausible to me ... or am I being sandbagged by the CIA ??..

Originally posted by justiceusa
I don't believe that I insinuated that aids is an immediate threat
You said "Aids is now an immediate threat". You didn't need to insinuate.

only that it has been persistent, and that a new strain of the disease is infecting heterosexuals
There isn't a heterosexual strain that affects heteros easier. Most of the strains are the same, except for a few mutated ones due to limited population interaction.

And that new stain is spreading rapidly out of Africa. Any disease that is unstoppable , incurable, and mutating is a potential threat.
It is stoppable - abstinance/protection until marriage. If you cheat after marriage, still protection. As for uncurable and mutating, that 99.99% of viruses.

When the point arrises that it becomes an immediate threat, it will be too late to do anything about it.
It is just as likely (if not more so) that some unkown airborne virus would jump out of the woodwork, then this would mutate to that level of contagion.

So far education has slowed ,but not stopped the spread of aids, even in America.
And that's all we can do until we have a cure. Note that resistance to sex-ed hasn't helped any.

My original post on this thread was about putting a quarantine on aids patients in this country during the 1980's.
Your original post was about how the US made the virus or something equally off the wall. (Sorry, wasn't you)

That definitely would have stopped it.
We didn't know what it was, so had no good way of testing, and therefore couldn't isolate. And where would you like to put all these people?

Instead we have spent billions on research that has accomplished very little. A quarantine now would be seen as politically incorrect.
It's a sexually transmitted disease which is avoidable. Quarantine at any point would have been seen as 'incorrect'.

Unlike aids cancer can not be easily prevented.
Actually many forms of cancer can be too.

I think I started out trying to make the point that an early quarrantine on aids victims would have saved billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
Nope, it was about a fer-fetched conspiracy theory. (Sorry, wasn't you)

"you said that aids is an immediate threat"

You conveniently took that statement out of context by dropping several words.

What I actually said was that "aids is now an immediate threat to heterosexual persons" previous to two years ago it was not.

My meaning being that any woman may now be infected by any aids carring man,and it is now an immediate danger to women.

If you think your grandaughter is going to remain a virgin until marriage you are living in the wrong century. As a matter of fact your replies are so far from reality you must live in a dream world.

The remainder of your reply is full of gross oversimplifications, that are not worthy of a response.

Originally posted by justiceusa
You convieniently took that statement out of context. What I actually said was that aids is now an immediate threat to heterosexual persons previous to two years ago it was not.
It was not out of context. You said it was an immediate threat to heteros. If it was to heteros then is obviously is for homos. That includes everyone who has genitals, which means it's an immediate threat to everyone. I however think that it is not an immediate threat because it is preventable.

If you think your grandaughter is going to remain a virgin until marriage you are living in the wrong century. As a matter of fact your replies are so far from reality you must live in a dream world.
There is also that little thing called protection. Most teenagers do have sex, but not all. Of the ones who do, there is no reason for them not to use protection.

Again gross oversimplification and generalization. If what you propose actually worked there would be no aids in this country.

"many types of cancer can be prevented."

Other that those cancers caused by smoking and sun exposure , could you name two??

"and where would you put these people"

At first there were only a few thousand and by then a test had been developed. It would have been best to have put them toghether. They could have taken care of each other saving the lives of health workers who contracted the disease by exposure to; blood ,spit ,and accidental needle punctures.

Originally posted by justiceusa
Again gross oversimplification and generalization. If what you propose actually worked there would be no aids in this country.
Yeah, kind of like drug addicts. All they need to do is not do it. We should attempt to educate people enough not to do it.

"many types of cancer can be prevented."
Other that those cancers caused by smoking and sun exposure , could you name two??
Colorectal and liver. To a certain extent cervical and breast cancer are also preventable.

"and where would you put these people"
At first there were only a few thousand and by then a test had been developed. It would have been best to have put them toghether. They could have taken care of each other saving the lives of health workers who contracted the disease by exposure to; blood ,spit ,and accidental needle punctures.
Simple precautions also protect health workers. Isolation is a drastic step for a disease which is preventable. Also, as pointed out earlier, this would not have been possible unless many many people were tested. We'd also have to close borders to prevent reinfections from other countries.

"Isolation is a drastic step for a disease that is preventable."

Yes it is but it works. And individual isolation is still required in the treatment of aids and other more rare forms of immune system deficiency. It is done to protect the patients not the public.

As far as simple precautionary measures to protect health care workers, there are none that are 100 % effective. Thousands of health care workers have died due to accidental or inadvertant aids exposure.

Thousands of hemophiliacs died of aids acquired because they were given blood clotting products that had not been screened even though testing was available.

If a qauarantine does not work the CDC would not be doing it with SARS patients.

Isolation of several thousand aids patients if done at the key time, and that time being when the numbers were still low yet a test was available, would have saved the lives of tens of thousands.

On the side of Persol with these statements... or should that be Persil.. Cleanliness is next to godliness..

Originally posted by justiceusa
"Isolation is a drastic step for a disease that is preventable."
Yes it is but it works. And individual isolation is still required in the treatment of aids and other more rare forms of immune system deficiency. It is done to protect the patients not the public.
The difference is that these paitients are not as susceptible. ALso, one of the AIDS patients might escape, so we might as well kill them. Just because "it works" doesn't mean it's right.

As far as simple precautionary measures to protect health care workers, there are none that are 100 % effective. Thousands of health care workers have died due to accidental or inadvertant aids exposure.
And most of these were before any precautions were put in place... before we knew the nature of the virus.

Thousands of hemophiliacs died of aids acquired because they were given blood clotting products that had not been screened even though testing was available.
There are thousands of viruses we don't test for. At the time it did not seem a large enough threat. The Red Cross still only does proportional testing.

If a qauarantine does not work the CDC would not be doing it with SARS patients.
SARS is not easily preventable.

Isolation of several thousand aids patients if done at the key time, and that time being when the numbers were still low yet a test was available, would have saved the lives of tens of thousands.
It would have been imprisioning 1000s of people for a disease that others do not easily catch. Other people would no longer go for testing of the virus, and we'd still have foreigners bringing the virus in.

"cleanliness is next to godliness"

Due to the subject matter I can only assume that you think sex is dirty.

As for the native Americans, we made a fair trade. They gave us tobacco, we gave them syphilis.

Re health care worker exposure You said " And most of these were before before any precautions were put in place.

oh yea sure, do you ever research anything before you spout off??

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1990/LT900623.html

Originally posted by justiceusa
Re health care worker exposure You said " And most of these were before before any precautions were put in place. oh yea sure, do you ever research anything before you spout off??
Actually yes I do. But thanks again for being ignorant. Please come again.

From your article (1990):The hot line receives about 45 calls a month. Hospital officials have confirmed through blood testing that 12 of those workers were exposed to HIV-contaminated blood. None have become infected. [H]is three-month study found high rates of unsafe handling of needles and numerous instances of failure to wear gloves, gowns, masks and goggles.Looks like a lack of precautions to me.

Back to your main point of quarantine, it is affectively imprisioning people for acts that they might commit. That is the main point in a nutshell.

Originally posted by katavan
Too clean and you end up repeating history.
E.g A number of Native Americans died from our simple illnesses.

SO ???.....

"That is the main point in a nut shell"
So this means you are gay. OK I understand now.

But there is no point that can be made that can offset an unecessary loss of life. btw my niece died of aids she acquired from a needle stick and remember nurses work 12 hour days and there is always a fatigue factor involved which tends to distract even the most cautious.

The problem has partially been solved by using improved needles, not unattainable levels of caution.

http://www.thebody.com/osha/saferneedle01.html

When you have actually accomplished something with your life you can sling the insults. Until then try to grow up.

Originally posted by justiceusa
"cleanliness is next to godliness"

Due to the subject matter I can only assume that you think sex is dirty.

Yeah !!!.. I like to get down and dirty...... Even at my age cough cough cough..


As for the native Americans, we made a fair trade. They gave us tobacco, we gave them syphilis.

Hmmmm.. I live in New Zealand... isn't that a sheep disease ???.

"I live in New Zealand , isn't that a sheep disease?"

Not really, sheep seem to be immune from catching venerial diseases from humans.

So I'm ok to screw sheep then !!! .. Phewww..

Originally posted by justiceusa
"That is the main point in a nut shell"
So this means you are gay. OK I understand now.
You're kidding me right. Are you 11 or 12? Oh 13? OK I understand now.

But there is no point that can be made that can offset an unecessary loss of life.
I fail to see how false imprisonment is any better. I might even be able to go for mandatory testing, and then mandatory education for the infected... but I wouldn't imprison somebody for an action they can easily prevent.

btw my niece died of aids she acquired from a needle stick and remember nurses work 12 hour days and there is always a fatigue factor involved which tends to distract even the most cautious.
I'm sorry for her, but imprisoning over 10000 people was not the answer. I have to ask however, what seems more drastic to you: locking 10k people away, or teaching nurses to only use a needle once.

When you have actually accomplished something with your life you can sling the insults. Until then try to grow up.
I have not been the one singing insults... I quote:
You conveniently took that statement out of context by dropping several words. (I did not, and explained why the rest of the sentence was extra)
you are living in the wrong century
you must live in a dream world
The remainder of your reply is full of gross oversimplifications (but you never pointed these out)
could you name two [preventable cancers]? (i did)
oh yea sure, do you ever research anything before you spout off
So this means you are gay (how being for civil right means I'm gay doesn't quite make sense)When you have actually accomplished something with your life (actually I am, but thanks anyhow)

HO HUM

Originally posted by justiceusa
HO HUM http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/53/H0235300.wav

I'm glad that you are able to look at things objectively and accept the critsism of others.:rolleyes:

Thanks I needed that, I was getting a bit carried away. I think my neice's death gave me an emotional connection to the situation that wasn't appropriate here:)

Actually the mass quarantine of people in the USA is nothing new. During the time that typhoid fever was a danger, people with typhoid were confined to buildings commonly called pest houses. They were cared for by people who had survived typhoid.
Its a hard call to make when we are weighing lives against civil rights. My vote will always be for saving lives. The aids victims were going to die regardless of where they were located.
I wouldn't have had
a problem with putting them toghether in large groups. They could have even helped to care for each other which would have saved money and reduced the risk to health care workers. Many of them possibly would have done it voluntarily.
sorry about your neice justice.
A peronal experience with disease or war is something that most of the youngsters here have yet to experience.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by newguy
Actually the mass quarantine of people in the USA is nothing new. During the time that typhoid fever was a danger, people with typhoid were confined to buildings commonly called pest houses.
Typhoid however was much easier to catch from innocent interactions with strangers. Also, the effects are generally seen within a week or two. Today it is suggested that people infected with typhoid are just 'quarantined' from foodhandling. Typhoid is actually a good case as to why quarantine is not really needed. Most infected people were not quarantined, with the most notable exception of 'Typhoid Mary' who was detained because after being told to stay away from food service, she kept handling it. This is one of the few reasons I'd go for quarantine... it thru negligence someone knowing puts other people at risk (an AIDS infected prositute).

The aids victims were going to die regardless of where they were located.
This is a fairly poor argument. We are all going to die regardless, and AIDS victims do not die very soon. There is no reason to isolate a very large number of people when prevention can work very well.

Persol said: We are all going to die and aids victims are not going to die very soon.
------------------------------------
aids victimes in thearly years (when we should have had a quarantine) died within two years on average.
There can be a considerable time between exposure and the actual diagnosis of acquired immune defienciency syndrome.
But to compare the life span of a healthy person with the expected life span of an aids victim is ludicrous.
would you be willing to trade your expected life span for that of an aids victim?? Nearly 900,000 people died because there was no quarantine of 10,000. You are comparing the civil rights of 10,000 against the lives of over 800,000
Those 800,000 who have died had a civil right to be protected.
Your entire argument is based on safe sex being an adequate solution. But lets face it, it was not then, and is not now. It only works if people use it, and far to many did not then and do not now.
A quarantine plus mandatory testing if done at a key time, and we did know when that time was, would have been a great incentive for persons to practice safe sex.
It also would also have saved over 800,000 lives.
History has proven your entire argument to be wrong.

You made some good points comparing the numbers.

In a previous post you mentioned typhoid, but I think a quarantine was most commonly used in cases of smallpox, and scarlet fever.

The feds have a plan for a massive quarantine should smallpox break out. It seems like last summer that was all they talked about.

Oddly enough although they were insisting on a massive vaccination plan, no one showed up for the party, even health care workers are declining.

In that respect it brings aids and safe sex to mind. No one wanted a smallpox vaccination because they all thought that they would nerver get small pox. Safe sex was ignored because they all thought that they would never get aids.

It is odd how they don't consider civil rights to be an issue anymore. Maybe they learned their lesson with aids.

BTW do you think that there was a conspiracy involved in the development and spread of aids??

Originally posted by newguy
But to compare the life span of a healthy person with the expected life span of an aids victim is ludicrous.
I see it as taking away their rights because they are "going to die regardless" as ludicrous.

would you be willing to trade your expected life span for that of an aids victim?? Nearly 900,000 people died because there was no quarantine of 10,000.
Most of this spread was from individuals who did not know they were carriers. Mandatory testing and sex ed would have be just as effective.

You are comparing the civil rights of 10,000 against the lives of over 800,000
Actually 10000 is a low number. The test for the disease was not widely available until around 1984. Yet regardless of the point, imprisioning people for actions that they might perform is contrary to what this country is based on. An AIDS victim is perfectly capable of not infecting anybody else... if they know they have it, and know the ways it spreads.

Those 800,000 who have died had a civil right to be protected.
Very simply, you can not imprison someone simply because they might perform a certain action.

Your entire argument is based on safe sex being an adequate solution. But lets face it, it was not then, and is not now. It only works if people use it, and far to many did not then and do not now.
That was only part of the point. You will not be able to quarantine the vast majority of infected people. You will still have individuals out 'in the wild' spreading the disease, and people would begin to avoid testing since they know the possible result. At the very most you wil slow the disease, but such a widespread testing/quarantine would not float in this country. When quaratine was suggested, most of the lawyers, doctors, politicians, and civil rights groups shot it down. The same thing would happen today if a similar sexually transmitted disease came along.

A quarantine plus mandatory testing if done at a key time, and we did know when that time was, would have been a great incentive for persons to practice safe sex.
Sex education would have had a greater influence if it had not been combated at every stage. It is one thing to notify an individual that they are infected, it is quite another to expect this individual to then go out and willingly put others at risk.

It also would also have saved over 800,000 lives.
History has proven your entire argument to be wrong.
Millions of americans are alive today because we stole the indian's land. Perhaps WWII would have been lost if there was no america. By this thinking our stealing of the indians land is justified.
You can not completely forsee the consequences of your actions until the results occur. It is nice to say that this may have save 800000 lives, but you can not punish thousands of people because it might have a benefitial effect. It should tell you something that Cuba was one of the few countries (maybe the only 1) that actually did quarantine.

AIDS kills under 20,000 people a year. In contrast, that is less then 1% of all deaths in the US. AS for your 800,000 number... only there have only been 470,000 reported victims. It is however estimated that 900,000 currently have the disease, so maybe that is what you meant. Of these, only 9000 are due to medical practices. Most everyone else contracted this through unsafe sex. Regardless of how well you you think your process would have worked, people have risky sex would be less likely to attend this mandatory testing. The disease would still have spread, and you'd have imprisoned people for actions they might perform. Mandatory testing would not have been able to be maintained, and you'd have just pushed the AIDS explosion back a year or two.... at the expense of 10-20,000 people. The fact that 2 highest immigration states (New York, California) account for 1/2 of all infections is telling that the virus would have gotten back into the population unless testing was fullproof and continuous.

Originally posted by justiceusa
OIn that respect it brings aids and safe sex to mind. No one wanted a smallpox vaccination because they all thought that they would nerver get small pox.
It's slightly more complicated this time. The vaccines can have very harmful side-effects. It's a matter of what you think is more likely: becoming sick from the vaccine, or being attacking with smallpox.

It is odd how they don't consider civil rights to be an issue anymore. Maybe they learned their lesson with aids.
I have not seen this disregard for civil rights. The vaccination is completely optional as you've said. The only catch is in the military... but you still reserve the choice of not getting vaccinated.

Until 1975 a smallpox vaccination was mandatory to enroll a child in school. The vaccinations were given at age 4 or 5.

As far as civil rights in my last post I was refering to the govenment plan for a massive quarantine of people infected with smallpox.

http://wearcam.org/envirotech/detainment_camps11-13-smallpox.htm

scroll down to executive order 11004 in the above link.

http://www.rense.com/general16/small.htm

aids stats

http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm

Originally posted by justiceusa
Until 1975 a smallpox vaccination was mandatory to enroll a child in school. The vaccinations were given at age 4 or 5.
I know, and at the time the expected side effects were better then the alternative. Back then (when the vaccination was originally called for) the odds were in favor of vacination being better then testing luck. Now it is not as clear cut. Parents saw nothing to lose in getting the children vaccinated, and everything to gain. Today we know more about the vaccine risks, and the risk of being hit by a smallpox terrorist attack outside of a major city is considered to be low.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/contraindications-public.asp

As far as civil rights in my last post I was refering to the govenment plan for a massive quarantine of people infected with smallpox.
I don't think that this is something they've 'learned from AIDS'. This is in the same vein as SARS, in that they are both contagious through normal contact and have a fairly short incubation period

[QUOTE]Originally posted by justiceusa
http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm
I think this clearly shows that quarantine is not needed.
This (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/surveill.htm) CDC presentation includes graphs of these numbers to make the trends more visible. Our current methods are slowing down the spread of AIDS. These methods are basically just preventions, and would have done wonders if fully implemented earlier (but hindsight and all that)...

You asked; do you think there was a cospiracy involved.
------------------------------------
Absolutely yes.

My uncle who is retired from the CIA told me about it a few years ago.
The human version of the virus was created by paying Africans to be injected with very small quantities of aids infected monkey blood. They actually scratched the penis of others and paid them to have anal sex with monkeys. It took quite a few years but they eventually had a human version of the disease.
It was started during the Nixon administration, then put on hold until the Reagan administration.
It seems the government was concerened about an expanding influence of the Russians into Africa and that, along with an
over population problem that was costing us billions in aid, caused them to think that a little outbreak of something really nasty mght diswade the Russians from going into key areas. It apparently worked the Ruskies never ventured much south of Somolia.
The key areas in Africa were in the countries where deposits of rare metals existed, and Africa was the only source of these metals other than Russia itself.
As far as I kow the greatest use of the rare metals is primarily in automotive catalytic converters.
I Know this is about as bizzare a story as you will ever read, but I have no reason to believe that my uncle would lie to me.

He he, now you are comparing my idea of stopping the aids epidemic to the demise of the Native Americans.
It is all history now and we
can postulate on this and that, but there is nothing wrong with a good old fashioned difference of opinion.
Thanks for the dialog and you have taught this old goat a few things.

I am a bit flabbergasted. hmm are you sure your uncle was taking his meds at the time??

If hes in the CIA he can't tell you about it so your point is kinda null and void.

What are you guys talking about?



I was going to leave my post at that:p
But are you saying you think the cia created aids? Well I wouldn't put anything past the cia but I don't think so, there is nothing unnatural or strange about aids. I would be more suspicious if it didn't exist.

Originally posted by newguy
My uncle who is retired from the CIA told me about it a few years ago.
Why on earth would he have told you this, and not somebody who could do something about it?

The human version of the virus was created by paying Africans to be injected with very small quantities of aids infected monkey blood. They actually scratched the penis of others and paid them to have anal sex with monkeys. It took quite a few years but they eventually had a human version of the disease.
You have 2 methods here. One of the expected ideas is that the african cure for polio (maybe wrong disease) was derived from monkeys, and the vaccine was contaminated with AIDS.

It seems the government was concerened about an expanding influence of the Russians into Africa and that, along with an
over population problem that was costing us billions in aid, caused them to think that a little outbreak of something really nasty mght diswade the Russians from going into key areas.
AIDS would not have diswaded Russia from Africa, especially since it was only sexually transmitted. They would not have designed a virus to spread over all of Africa (as a detterent) and not expected it to escape that continent. If the overpopulation problem actually saves us money as workers are cheaper. The aid money we give is optional, and is kind of void now that we are just paying for AIDS research. Finally, it took an awful long time for the US to figure out what AIDS was, and it is doubtful that the US would have kept this information secret while risking the spread of the disease.

It apparently worked the Ruskies never ventured much south of Somolia.
They made it all the way to South Africa. Numerous KGB agents were involved. They had no need to invade.

The key areas in Africa were in the countries where deposits of rare metals existed, and Africa was the only source of these metals other than Russia itself.
South Africa had the largest amount of iron and uranium, and Russia actively pursued an influence.

As far as I kow the greatest use of the rare metals is primarily in automotive catalytic converters.
Or nuclear uses...

I Know this is about as bizzare a story as you will ever read, but I have no reason to believe that my uncle would lie to me.
People always say this, yet it is obvious that some people's uncles lie. Either it is a lie, or a very VERY large portion of the story is missing.

you said: if he is in the CIA he can't talk about it.
You didn't read correctly. I said that my uncle is retired from the CIA and has been since 1985.

Originally posted by newguy
you said: if he is in the CIA he can't talk about it.
You didn't read correctly. I said that my uncle is retired from the CIA and has been since 1985.

He still can't talk about it.

I doubt they have a clause 'You can tell whatever secrets you want after you retire' :)

You said: either it is a lie or a VERY large portion of the story is missing.

I talked to my uncle this morning to clarify a few things. That VERY large portion of the story that is missing would take about 200 pages minimum.
There were a lot of things going on in Africa in the late 70's. Far too much to print here, and as uncle Jeff said "no one will believe it anyway thats why I can talk about it now."
All records have been destroyed and only a few individuals ever knew the entire story. Agents were divided into groups, each group only knowing what was needed to complete a certain phase of the operation.
My uncle never knew the entire story at the time ,but has learned a lot more since he and some of his friends have retired and started filling in the gaps.
Africa was crawling with Russians at the time, in countries such as Angola, Zimbabwe, Rodesia, South Africa, plus many others.
It had nothing to do with metals for weapons Both the US and Russia already had those.
Russia and South Africa control 90% of the supply of the rare metals like platinum and palladium.
My uncle's assignment was to insure that none of the metal producing African countries fell under the influence of the Russians as that would give them control of the market.
Aids was just a small part of the overall methodology of maintaining control, which primarily involved assinations.
This is about as condensed as I can or want to make a VERY large story. But hey, believe what you want, there is no paper trail. Only memories.

So shoot him.

this is always how info is discredited. you start of with the truth and then people just come and playing there disinfo games, make the thread into a waste of time.

the thread has just gone of in so many tangents, it has really got nowhere as a discussion.

It appears to me that newguy's information seems to agree with your first post in this thread, not discredit it.

What I can't figure out is why the govenment would develop a biological weapon that only infected gay men.

hmm come to think of it, aids now is being transmited heterosexually at an exteme rate in Africa, and increasingly here.

no. what i started out with was that it was seen as a massive contraceptive. they knew it was highly unlikely that it would stay in the gay community. by the time it was recognised it would have been widespread, amongst many communities, but still not noticable.

But in what way could aids have been a massive contraceptive in Africa? They still to this day refuse to wear, or have no access to condoms.

Or were you thinking about the fear of aids resulting in people either wearing protection or even refusing to have sex in other countries?

I can see where aids "might" have developed into a massive population control system in Africa by causing a large number of deaths.

But even that isn't happening because people with aids have a long enough life span to reproduce. For the most part what has evolved is massive suffering.

In your original post you were refering to the information available in Russia. Is that supposed to be Info gathered by the KGB and concerning the US involvement in the development of aids?