AIDS: The Strecker Memorandum

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

haha!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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...

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?tm...1&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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did I piss you off? I’m sorry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

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.

 

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.

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?

 

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.

and even more thoughly by weebee

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?