AIDS: Ancient or a new disease?

[Mokele]

But it's not baseless to say that for the last 40 years the West and Russia have been the (only) ones actively engaged in biological warfare research, including 'test' infections on local populations.

 

First, if you're claiming HIV was 'created', that's obviously wrong. It is evident in a blood sample taken in 1959, and we didn't have the technology to artifically create viri.

 

Secondly, why would any government agency waste the time 'starting' the disease over 6 times (there are a minimum of 6 origins of HIV strains, all zoonotic)?

 

Third, why use SIV anyway? Herpes and other STDs would have worked just as well, without the trouble of getting an african virus. That'd be like going to Iowa to buy corn flakes rather than your local grocery store.

 

Fifth, HIV is a shitty bioweapon. The *only* reasons it's so scary is that it can't be cured and it has a long transmission time, but it's actual infection rate is pretty shitty, on the order of 1 in 10000 transmissions resulting in infection.

 

Sixth, why would you use a bioweapon that you can't control? It'd make much more sense to use something that you can cure so that if it spreads out of the target area/population, the accidental infections can be cured.

 

Seventh, if it was to target gays, why start it out in africa? If it was to target africa, why not use something rapid and lethal that could be contained to that continent? If blacks in general, you could use the same and simply count on the general poverty level to prevent access to the healthcare needed for a cure. HIV makes *no* sense as a weapon for any of these 'target groups'.

 

Nobody ever said that the Pentagon's plan had to make sense. In fact, when homosexuality was still a 'disease' in the DSM, the Pentagon paid for some research to see if homosexuality could be transmitted by a bacterium or a virus - the thought being that enemy troops would be too busy humping each other to fight (I kid you not).

 

Do I even want to know how much of our money was wasted on that?

 

does anyone know the exact time that it can survive outside of the human body?

 

A bit of quick googling around showed that it's typically less than 24 hours, though in artificial lab conditions it can be kept for as much as 15 days. But for anything occuring in the non-lab world, the 24 hours figure would be closer. It's apparently very fragile.

 

By the way, have you looked at operation Northwoods? That was the Pentagon proposal by the Chiefs of Staff to Kennedy that they hijack a plane and crash it into some U.S. target, killing hundreds(thousands?) of their own citizens and then blame the Cubans. Kennedy said NO and was assassinated 3 months later. Isn't that idea creepily familiar now?

 

Do you have a source for this, a real source?

 

----

 

Basically, it's Occam's razor. You can argue the conspiracy POV until you're blue in the face, but until you find hard evidence that *cannot* be explained by the current, simple view, there's no reason to give the conspiracy POV any creedence at all.

 

Mokele

[rakuenso]

Does anyone even remotely remember the Ebola Reston incident, where two members of the USAMIIRD didn't goto the lock down area DESPITE having whiffed ebola from testtubes? We were ridiculously lucky that Reston wasn't a virulent strain.

 

Nobody ever said that the Pentagon's plan had to make sense. In fact, when homosexuality was still a 'disease' in the DSM, the Pentagon paid for some research to see if homosexuality could be transmitted by a bacterium or a virus - the thought being that enemy troops would be too busy humping each other to fight (I kid you not).

 

rofl that gave me a good chuckle

[Daecon]

Maybe it spread from monkeys to humans because those horny chimp-farmers couldn't get hold of any sheep?

[MetaFrizzics]

These are good questions, but only from the viewpoint of a biologist, not someone with a real understanding of espionage, Covert Ops, and Psych Ops. Let's look at them:

 

Secondly, why would any government agency waste the time 'starting' the disease over 6 times (there are a minimum of 6 origins of HIV strains, all zoonotic)?

Answer: Why use a gun six times? Cause it works for the task at hand. Cause we have it in stock.

Third, why use SIV anyway? Herpes and other STDs would have worked just as well, without the trouble of getting an african virus. That'd be like going to Iowa to buy corn flakes rather than your local grocery store.

Exactly what you'd want to do, if you want to mislead a medical practitioner long enough to kill someone. What used to happen in the past when someone in Iowa presented with an exotic disease? He would be misdiagnosed and die.

Fifth, HIV is a shitty bioweapon. The *only* reasons it's so scary is that it can't be cured and it has a long transmission time, but it's actual infection rate is pretty shitty, on the order of 1 in 10000 transmissions resulting in infection.

This makes it a perfect weapon for both Covert Ops and Psych Ops. On the one hand its easy to handle for the operator, and presents no real threat on home soil, while on the other hand it certainly has completely terrorized the gay population. Awesome. Nice job boys.

Sixth, why would you use a bioweapon that you can't control? It'd make much more sense to use something that you can cure so that if it spreads out of the target area/population, the accidental infections can be cured.

As bio-weapons go, AIDS is pretty easy to control. And because its an STD, its pretty easy to hand out to selected targets with a certain kind of weakness. Curability is only one factor, weighted against others like spreadability. Nothing's perfect, but hey, it kills 'fags'.

Seventh, if it was to target gays, why start it out in africa? If it was to target africa, why not use something rapid and lethal that could be contained to that continent? If blacks in general, you could use the same and simply count on the general poverty level to prevent access to the healthcare needed for a cure. HIV makes *no* sense as a weapon for any of these 'target groups'.

This is naive. You speak as though Covert Ops only has one task. In fact, there can be hundreds of motives, targets, and political purposes which vary over time, and even from moment to moment as decisions are made behind the scenes. Secondly, it is not always best to openly attack a target. In order to perform a covert operation, you have to sacrifice efficiency, speed, and use multiple parallel and backup tactics and strategies.

 

Finally, the nature of Covert Ops is such that most of the evidence for the Op is destroyed, the evidence that remains is ambiguous, and other false evidence is deliberately provided, preventing an organized and focussed recognition and objection, along with counter-strikes.

 

But as for Psych Ops, AIDS is the ideal weapon. It didn't have to be 'created' or invented. But a loaded gun on the counter will certainly be used. Suppose you want to slow down reproduction in Blacks. Well, scare them out of having sex, scare other people out of having sex with them, and kill those who aren't scared.

[MetaFrizzics]

By the way, have you looked at operation Northwoods? That was the Pentagon proposal by the Chiefs of Staff to Kennedy that they hijack a plane and crash it into some U.S. target, killing hundreds(thousands?) of their own citizens and then blame the Cubans. Kennedy said NO and was assassinated 3 months later. Isn't that idea creepily familiar now?

Do you have a source for this, a real source?

 

Try the US Government Declassified Archives right here:

 

Northwoods Operation

 

Here's an alternate link to the .pdf file

Northwoods Op 2

If that doesn't spell it out for you, do a search with Dogpile "Operation Northwoods".

[Ophiolite]

By the way, have you looked at operation Northwoods? That was the Pentagon proposal by the Chiefs of Staff to Kennedy that they hijack a plane and crash it into some U.S. target, killing hundreds(thousands?) of their own citizens and then blame the Cubans?

I've read your source. Please identify on which page of the document this specific plan is mentioned. The only one of several plans that could actually have resulted in loss of life was that to sink Cuban refugee boats (real or simulated).

[MetaFrizzics]

Dozens of ideas were discussed in the document in a 'mix and match' basis. I've already explained why even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were somewhat careful what they actually put in writing, even when hiding it from the Chairman. Its called Covert Ops for a reason.

 

only one of several plans could actually have resulted in loss of life - to sink Cuban refugee boats

"Gee, only garlic eating 'Spics' would be killed Mr. President: Not 'real' Americans."

 

Then again, they opened fire on unarmed Ohio State University students.

I guess I've misjudged them.

 

By the way, just how do you expect to 'discredit' a declassified document written by the JTS and posted on the Govt Archives website?

They damn well wrote every last comma including spelling errors.

 

"sink refugee boats" - nice euphemism for murdering innocent people.

 

Anyway, I've started a new thread in POLITICS so this one can continue on topic. Let's go there and chat.

[Mokele]

Congratulations. It's rare, outside of creationism, that I can dismiss entire posts in one handy sweep, but your HIV post allows me to do just that: Arguementum ad ignorantum, I win.

 

Like I said, until you can offer *hard evidence* that cannot be explained by the much less ludicrous and paranoid "zoonotic transmission", then you're simply speculating wildly and without basis.

 

For instance, lets say I want to know why both alligators and cryptobranchid salamanders have a range limited to the eastern US and eastern China (& Japan for cryptobranchids). On one hand, I have a hypothesis about continental drifts, extinctions, and climate change. On the other, I have a hypothesis about sneaky aliens moving animals around on prehistoric earth according to some secret plan, leaving no trace beyond the movement of the animals. Both explain all the data (present and past distributions). Now, which of these will a serious journal on phylogeography accept: "The effects of climate change on large laurasian aquatic predators" or "Aliens have been abducting our salamanders!"

 

Occam's razor. Until you can provide any sort of credible evidence that *isn't* just explaining existing data in new and ludicrous ways, the only journal you'll be publishing this in is The Weekly World News, next to the story about Bigfoot's hot naked affair with the Loch Ness Monster.

 

Mokele

[MetaFrizzics]

I think you've been indoctrinated into 'science-think' so deeply that you just don't see the catastrophic failure of Occam's Razor, and scientific procedure in general, when someone is deliberately deceiving you and tampering with the evidence.

 

Example:

 

Kennedy is shot. Apparently a loner is arrested.

Occam's Razor: lone gunman.

Apparently a Jewish Would-be Communist double agent is arrested.

Occam's Razor: hopeful lone gunman.

Nagging question says - How did he know where to be for the bead?

Occam's Razor: lucky lone gunman.

Private Citizen shoots lone gunman.

Occam's Razor: Outraged patriot loses control. two lone gunmen.

2nd gunman turns out to be connected Vegas mobster & strip club owner who has free run of Texas police station.

Occam's Razor: Two colorful lone gunmen.

1st lone gunman turns out to have done a practice run on a U.S. general.

Occam's Razor: Okay, maybe three lone gunmen.

Turns out Kennedy turned down a plan to attack American targets and blame Cuba.

Occam's Razor: Okay, at the most maybe 5 or 10 lone gunmen.

Warren Commission finds nothing of interest.

Occam's Razor: Okay, surely no more than 500 or so lone gunmen.

Bobby Kennedy shot:

Occam's Razor: Yep. 501 lone gunmen.

[Mokele]

I think you've been indoctrinated into 'science-think' so deeply that you just don't see the catastrophic failure of Occam's Razor, and scientific procedure in general, when someone is deliberately deceiving you and tampering with the evidence.

 

And you've become so committed to your foolish, irrational, paranoid conspiracy theory that you cannot see it's obvious failures and shortcomings, mostly a total lack of evidence and 'support' based solely upon arguement from ignorance (by which I mean lack of evidence, arguing from the gaps) and wild speculation.

 

Yes, deliberate tampering with the evidence *can* interfere with Occam's razor. But tampering is never, ever perfect and further evidence-gathering can uncover it. On top of that, even your example relies on it: new evidence must be presented, even in conspiracy theories, before speculation can even begin. If the Kennedy assassination had been totally unremarkable, we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of speculations about it, would we? No, that's only because *evidence* (crappy or not) tipped us off that there might be something more. Even conspiracy theories have an element of Occam's razor.

 

Now, as to the alteration of data, you cannot expect any agency working in the late 50's and 60's to be able to forsee *and* cover up data we can now aquire. For instance, modern genetic testing has allowed us to precisely trace the lineages of HIV, and find the ancestral SIV species. Not only could they not have known that we'd be able to do that, but even if they had speculated, they would have had *NO* way of doctoring the results because they lacked the technology back then. They could not have altered the origin location, because again, they lacked the technology to alter the data we would uncover. They could not have doctored old blood samples, because it would be evident they did so. Over and over again, we find aspects of the origin and spread of HIV that could *not* have been convered up simply because they lacked the technology to do so.

 

If you want to ignore OR, along with all logic and reason, feel free, but this thread is in a *science* forum. If you want to post these views, feel free to do so, but in Psuedoscience, where they belong.

 

Mokele

[MetaFrizzics]

Actually, I don't have a problem with alot of what you are saying:

Yes, deliberate tampering with the evidence *can* interfere with Occam's razor. But tampering is never, ever perfect and further evidence-gathering can uncover it. On top of that, even your example relies on it: Now, as to the alteration of data, you cannot expect any agency working in the late 50's and 60's to be able to forsee *and* cover up data we can now aquire.

This is precisely where the Northwoods Operation papers come in for example.

The Joint Chiefs did not forsee either any serious consequences of possible release 50 years later (they'd all be dead or retired), nor did they forsee their modern counterparts being stupid enough to actually crash drones into the WTC. Now, the revealed fact that such things are routinely proposed behind closed doors is an embarrassment.

They could not have altered the origin location, because again, they lacked the technology to alter the data we would uncover. They could not have doctored old blood samples, because it would be evident they did so. Over and over again, we find aspects of the origin and spread of HIV that could *not* have been convered up simply because they lacked the technology to do so.

This is all agreed upon. But the 'Canadian Airline Steward' was just a cover story, and hopelessly implausible for the very reasons you give. Again, I don't suggest that *all* AIDS cases were CIA operations, or simply an attack on gays.

 

On the contrary, I would strongly suggest that many of the first 'AIDS' cases were a combination of gays in SanFran snorting Amyl Nitrate and destroying their immune system with drug abuse, and the doctors who were 'treating' them deliberately murdering them with deadly toxic 'cocktails' as pretense of treatment, because they were gay. There is ample evidence that treatment with these chemical 'cocktails' were continued, even long after the doctors knew they were killing the patients.

 

you've become so committed to your foolish, irrational, paranoid conspiracy theory that you cannot see it's obvious failures and shortcomings,

On the contrary, I am not committed to any theory at all, I only tentatively entertain what appears most plausible to the current evidence at hand, including political and military practice and procedure.

 

In fact, it seems almost equally plausible that there is no AIDS virus at all, and that the whole thing is just the latest incarnation of the monstrous and satanic Cancer Research Cartel, which seems to be running out of steam. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it was a conspiracy of an entirely different kind, namely another way to fleece the public, the govenment, and rich queers out of all their money by jaded 'doctors' who need new yachts.

[Rasori]

nor did [the Joint Chiefs of 50 years ago] forsee their modern counterparts being stupid enough to actually crash drones into the WTC.

 

I seriously wish I could snort over the internet. "Pffft" doesn't cut it.

[LucidDreamer]

Why would we believe that the AIDS epidemic was caused by a conspiracy when we know that the SIV/HIV viruses can easily be transmitted between primate species without any human intervention?

 

We also know through mutagenic studies that the virus was first introduced into the human population in the 1930's. People weren’t even aware that chimpanzees had a virus called SIV until at least the 1980's. Why would they even suspect that chimpanzees or monkeys harbored this virus when apes and African monkeys don't even become sick? So you are suggesting that scientists of the 1930's somehow knew to look for a virus in chimpanzees that didn't cause any symptoms? They also needed to know that this virus would cause AIDS in humans when it didn't cause any harm to the apes.

 

The brilliance of these men doesn't stop there. They must have had the foresight to know that even though they infected people in Africa that it would somehow end up in the gay community in the USA. They must have foreseen the existence of the gay bath houses and the Canadian gay male Airline steward that would infect the homosexual community.

 

Furthermore, they lacked almost all of the genetic and biochemical technology that we use today to isolate nucleic acids and proteins. Do you realize how much work went into isolating the HIV virus and identifying its RNA and proteins using the technology available in the 1980s and 90's? It would have been almost impossible for the scientists of the 1930s to do this. The geniuses that were able to pull this off deserve to be in control because they are obviously far more intelligent then we are.

[MetaFrizzics]

Neither a 'snort' or 'pffft' cuts it.

 

300 NY firemen were murdered. One of the few groups of people in the USA who have a legitimate claim to moral high ground over just about anyone. In one single act, the largest group of people representing the absolute best the West has to offer were destroyed in the interests of oil grabbing by German-American Industrialists.

 

If only a real terrorist would fly a real plane into an Oil-cartel convention.

 

Those dead firemen are victims of the worst crime in the history of Covert Operations.

Are 300 firemen worth grabbing another third of the world's oil reserves?

Give me the firemen back. The 'Yale' graduates who didn't die aren't worth squat.

 

In my view the 300 firemen are worth a lot more than 300 Pentagon personnel.

I note with sarcasm the lame faked Pentagon 'crash'.

[Mokele]

This is precisely where the Northwoods Operation papers come in for example.

The Joint Chiefs did not forsee either any serious consequences of possible release 50 years later (they'd all be dead or retired), nor did they forsee their modern counterparts being stupid enough to actually crash drones into the WTC. Now, the revealed fact that such things are routinely proposed behind closed doors is an embarrassment.

 

Which has precisely nothing to do with this thread, beyond giving you a tiny wedge of credulity, which you use as a springboard for ridiculous speculation.

 

But the 'Canadian Airline Steward' was just a cover story, and hopelessly implausible for the very reasons you give. Again, I don't suggest that *all* AIDS cases were CIA operations, or simply an attack on gays.

 

Actually, the one supposedly responsible was a norwegian sailor, and that has, AFAIK, been proven.

 

On the contrary, I would strongly suggest that many of the first 'AIDS' cases were a combination of gays in S.F. snorting Amyl Nitrate and destroying their immune system with drug abuse, and the doctors who were 'treating' them deliberately murdering them with deadly toxic 'cocktails' as pretense of treatment, because they were gay. There is ample evidence that treatment with these chemical 'cocktails' were continued, even long after the doctors knew they were killing the patients.

 

Any *real* evidence for this rampant and baseless speculation? I turned up precisely jack about immunosupressant effects of amyl nitrite. As for the "toxins", those are called "anti-cancer drugs"; damn near all such drugs are actually lethal toxins, but are administered in small amounts. This is because one of the most common affects of HIV is Kaposi's sarcoma, a cancer that arises due to infection by a virus the body usually wipes out, but cannot in immuno-suppressed patients. So they were actually treating them for what they thought was the problem.

 

On the contrary, I am not committed to any theory at all, I only tentatively entertain what appears most plausible to the current evidence at hand, including political and military practice and procedure.

 

If this is your idea of 'plausible', I shudder to think what your speculations must be like. Naked Lunch on an acid trip, most likely.

 

In fact, it seems almost equally plausible that there is no AIDS virus at all, and that the whole thing is just the latest incarnation of the monstrous and satanic Cancer Research Cartel, which seems to be running out of steam. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out the it was a conspiracy of an entirely different kind, namely another way to fleece the public, the govenment, and rich queers out of all their money by jaded 'doctors' who need new yachts.

 

This statement is so outrageously moronic that I just have to ask if you are being ironic, or just stupid.

 

You should actually know that a) the only connection between cancer and HIV is a few opportunistic infections (see above) and that sometimes the same company makes drugs for both (a given in the age of mergers), and b) the idea of HIV does not cause AIDS is so patently ludicrous that no reputable peer-review journal will publish it, and the main supporters have become pariahs in the scientific community.

 

Seriously, this is absolutely ridiculous. If this is your idea of science, you don't belong here.

 

Mokele

[MetaFrizzics]

Are you just being coy or facetious? You spelled it amyl nitrite in your last post, so I'm not surprised you got nothing on a search:

 

RISK:

Nitrates directly effect the cardiovascular system and should not be taken (unless under direction from a Doctor) with a history of heart disease. Amyl nitrate is highly flammable and potentially explosive. Amyl and butyl nitrate is toxic if ingested (swallowed) or injected.

 

WOMEN'S ISSUES

The effects on blood pressure and vascular flow may be dangerous to pregnant women. Nitrates cross the placenta.

 

DESCRIPTION

Inhalants are either chemicals in gaseous form or volatile solvents (liquids) that becomes gas at the time of use, which are inhaled by people for their psychoactive effects.

 

CAUTION

Our understanding of the literature is that there is no such thing as safe use of most volatile solvents, aerosols or other street inhalants : their psychoactive effects may be inseparable from nerve and organ damage.

 

Overdose symptoms include nausea' date=' vomiting, badly decreased blood pressure and respiration, fainting, cold skin and possible circulatory collapse and death.

 

The name "Amyl nitrate" is commonly mistaken for [b']amyl nitrite[/b]; they are two different chemicals.

 

If you understand drugs at all, and have any knowledge of drug culture, you will be aware that

 

(1) the potential deadly effects of any drug are increased by orders of magnitude when combined with other drugs.

 

(2) This is precisely what happens in the current drug culture. Drugs are more likely to be combined with other drugs and alcohol than used alone.

 

So my contention about the risks of rampant amyl nitrate abuse (known history of AIDS patients) combined with other drugs is highly plausible.

 

If this is your idea of science, you don't belong here.

This is not worth responding to, except to point out that such mean-minded treatment is a last resort when other methods of debate don't work.

[zyncod]

Ok, Metafrizzics. If you are like most people that I know that think that AIDS cocktails are lethal and that Hitler was a Rothschild (and I know a lot of people like that, living in Manhattan as I do), would you not agree that there are more pressing issues than outing the government's involvement in a plague that cannot at this point be stopped? These kind of ideas threaten the entire idea of progress in this country by painting all such semi-revolutionaries as paranoid idiots. If the Pentagon was indeed capable of keeping the deliberate spread of AIDS under wraps (and I am no longer arguing whether or not this is plausible), what chance do you have of raising the consciousness of the people on an online forum? You should instead be out there with your AK and plastique if you truly believe this to be the case.

 

As a person working in the sciences and also somebody who believes that the Democrats are more detrimental to our country than the Republicans (that is, somebody who understands why AIDS cocktails are beneficial and the value of a spine in the face of fascism), I beg of you, please stop espousing conspiracy theories and get to work on what matters.

[Rasori]

Are you just being coy or facetious?... (Whole post)

 

Just for kicks, this makes me want to say "Ad Hominem tu Quoque."

 

Link just for explanation for those (like me, just a little while ago) who wouldn't understand. Lucky I came across that lol.

[MetaFrizzics]

Ok' date=' Metafrizzics. ... would you not agree that there are more pressing issues than outing the government's involvement in a plague that cannot at this point be stopped? ... what chance do you have of raising the consciousness of the people on an online forum? You should instead be out there with your AK and plastique if you truly believe this to be the case.

As a ... Republican..., I beg of you, please stop espousing conspiracy theories and get to work on what matters.[/quote']

 

This is where my argument falls to the ground. This is the most coherent and concise opposition I have ever encountered. You got me there.

 

I feel like Charlton Heston at the end of Planet of the Apes: "Damn you! You finally did it!"

 

Of course there is little hope of stopping the AIDS epidemic in the USA.

But we could still theoretically stop Bill Gates from spending 100 million to innoculate Africa with who knows what poisonous bioweapon/geneticImplant.

 

Anyway, now that Bush has let the rifle laws lapse into obscurity, where can I order my AK-47? I don't want to take on the Pentagon. Too big. Just give me a TNT vest and a deadman switch and point me in the direction of a Dentist Convention: I have my own personal list of enemies.

 

OMG! Next he'll want to outlaw an American's natural born right to ride a Harley-Davidson. Must be some kinda commie.

 

[Mokele]

You spelled it amyl nitrite in your last post, so I'm not surprised you got nothing on a search:

 

I spelled it 'amyl nitrite' in my post because "poppers" *are* amyl nitrite. Amyl nitrate, on the other hand, is a drug used to cure cyanide poisoning and treat angina. Maybe if you actually *read* what the websites you quote say, you'd have noticed that.

 

And yes, I saw that list of effects. Yes, they're nasty. None of them, however, are immunosupressant effects, even temporarily.

 

So my contention about the risks of rampant amyl nitrate abuse (known history of AIDS patients) combined with other drugs is highly plausible.

 

Yes, I am aware of the dangers of mixing drugs, but I *still* don't see an immunosupressant effect, which is necessary for your idea to hold water.

 

Oh, and how do you explain the numerous AIDS patients who are totally clean, never having used drugs?

 

This is not worth responding to, except to point out that such mean-minded treatment is a last resort when other methods of debate don't work.

 

Precisely, because in order for other methods of debate to work, the other side actually has to be sane, reasonable, and focused on facts rather than speculation. As none of the above describe you, I have little choice in my debating tactics.

 

Seriously, I've heard more reasoned arguements coming from homeless guys who mumble all the time about the CIA putting chips in their brains.

 

But we could still theoretically stop Bill Gates from spending 100 million to innoculate Africa with who knows what poisonous bioweapon/geneticImplant.

 

Yes, let's stop people from being treated. Brilliant idea. All based on a conspiracy theory.

 

If, god forbid, you ever reproduce, I bet you'll be one of these parents who never vaccinates their kids because they think it's all some secret government plot, then wonders why they died of whooping cough.

 

Keep your paranoia to yourself, and don't interfere with the good works of other, sensible people.

 

Mokele

[Dave]

Yeah, this is just stupid. What a waste of a good thread. Closed.