AIDS man made?

[Soulja]

There is a theory opposing the "Green Monkey" theory. That AIDS was man made, crossing Bovine Lukemia with Sheep Visna Virus, and was used to wipe out the Black race.

 

What do you make of this?

[blike]

I'll post more on this later, but there is some theory that it targeted the homosexual population.

 

Someone gave me a video on it one time, it was very informative. Explained both sides of the argument, and it seemed both sides had valid points.

 

I'll try to dig up some info.

[fafalone]

Oh please. This is getting moved to pseudoscience.

[fafalone]

BTW this got moved because of appropriate reasons, not just because I felt like moving it.

 

a) when AIDs appeared, we didn't have the means to "cross" viruses. we still don't really have that ability beyond a few projects.

 

b) If an agency such as USAMRIID was trying to build a virus to wipe out a particular group, they wouldn't release it when it was blatantly obvious it effected everyone.

 

c) Anyone who thinks AIDS only effects the homosexual population is a flaming imbecile.

 

d) as is anyone who thinks it effects only blacks; but incidently this stems from their own imbecility in africa where they believe sex with a virgin cures it and don't believe in condoms.

 

e) this sounds like something the "president bush orchestrated september 11th" people would say.

 

f) Just a technicality to clear up if you're going to continue to discuss this... "AIDS" is not a virus. AIDS is not transmissable. The virus is HIV, AIDS is the condition.

[aman]

Thank you Fafalone because I read this and couldn't respond until some sensible direction was taken.

The spread of HIV is like the spread of flu viruses and kills many people but cannot be blamed on a bio lab or a conspiracy. Each can be traced to a source that naturally occured. It is easy to blame a plot or conspiracy on anything harmful if your irrational, illogical, or paranoid but if your a scientist the truth is before your eyes. It's natural but terrible. Fight the disease with education. The disease targets all the ignorant and careless and innocent victims of circumstance. It doesn't target by race since we all can get it.

Just aman

[dragoon]

And if they were even trying to whipe out a whole group of people and this virus isnt controllable there is still the chance that it can spread to anyone and then their entire plan would backfire and possibly whipe out the whole entire population over time.

[Soulja]

hey, i dont agree with this

 

just telling you about this theory

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Soulja

There is a theory opposing the "Green Monkey" theory. That AIDS was man made, crossing Bovine Lukemia with Sheep Visna Virus, and was used to wipe out the Black race.

 

What do you make of this?

I don't recall the Black race being wiped out.

[aman]

There's a lot of old wives tale crap posted on the internet.

Just aman

[Guest Roque]

Originally posted by blike

I'll post more on this later, but there is some theory that it targeted the homosexual population.

 

Someone gave me a video on it one time, it was very informative. Explained both sides of the argument, and it seemed both sides had valid points.

 

I'll try to dig up some info.

 

I've heard the same thing, but it just seems a bit far fetched for me.

[aman]

Ya, it's kinda like using dynamite in a crowded building to kill a fly. Nobody could be that stupid.

Just aman

[fafalone]

It's just right-wing homophobe propaganda. I'm not gay, but I really hate extreme homophobes.

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by fafalone

I'm not gay, but I really hate extreme homophobes.

You're a homophobophobic?

[Soulja]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

You're a homophobophobic?

 

I dont think he is

 

anywayz that reminds me ima go make a topic about gays

[Sayonara]

Originally posted by Sayonara³

You're a homo-phobo-phobic?

[fafalone]

I'm not scared of them, it just goes back to my extreme hatred of ignorance, flagrant avoidable cretinism evokes a rage in me beyond description

[aman]

We need some constructive ideal for ignorant or easily led people to follow fanatically. A lot of them just want to belong to something. Socially there needs to be an alternative that's different but productive. I don't know what it could be.

Just aman

[fafalone]

They won't follow you if it entails actually working for something, so that's a major road block.

[aman]

I think people will work for the reward of somebody saying you did a good job. Losers don't here that very often and can easily led even if the praise uses them. Their used but still belong.

Our schools need to be able to spend time with the losers as well as the easy achievers, pointing them to constructive lifes.

Our prison system also need a lot of work.

Just aman

[chris]

actually....

 

i have heard of this theory quite on accident. I didn't even think about it until i was taking a test, and i heard a teacher start teaching that in class. when i heard it, i wondered. then i decided to ask someone who would prolly know before anyone on sf would know. this person pretty much told me that that rumor, was true. but it wasn't just aimed at blacks. it was aimed at, what at the time, seemed to set 'negative tones' to society. They were blacks, homeless people, gays, and latin americans. I wasn't told how it was first introduced in society.

 

the reason that they thought this plan wouldnt backfire, was because at the time (i think) was because groups were predomantly staying together. So i dont know how the first HIV virus was broken out, if it was in a drug, food, or what ever. the fact that people think that some dude was bit by a monkey, and had sex to cause this massive world wide epidemic we had on our hands, is insane. how could 1 person, help spread this virus to millions of people world wide, in a short time?

[aman]

The earliest cases on record for HIV date back to the 80's. It's sexually transmitted and also blood born. It got in the blood supply. Drug needles spread it also. Over a few years and with our transportations systems making it a small world the spread of HIV seems reasonable since it wasn't detected until it already reached epidemic.

Just aman

[Soulja]

Originally posted by aman

The earliest cases on record for HIV date back to the 80's.

 

1975 - Disputed that First AIDS cases came from Hati (not proven)

1976 - First AIDS Cases in Africa

1979 - New York and San Fransico had the 1st cases of AIDS in the U.S.

[Soulja]

[Soulja]

The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). There are two different versions of HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. These viruses are believed, on the basis of their genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to SIV. Several years after the initial HIV infection, the immune system is weakened to the point where opportunistic infections occur, resulting in the syndrome of AIDS. A good reference for more information on the "mainstream" view of AIDS is:

 

The Science of AIDS : readings from Scientific American magazine. New York : W.H. Freeman, c1989.

 

Strecker's theory is that the CIA made HIV in the 1970's by combining bovine leukemia virus (BLV) and sheep visna virus (OLV). The evidence for this theory is that the government was looking at biological warfare around then, and that there are some structural similarities between HIV and BLV and visna. The evidence against this theory is:

 

 

We didn't have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene splicing. (But maybe the CIA has secret advanced technology?)

 

The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely available (e.g. from genbank). You can look at them and compare them yourself. The HIV sequence is totally different from BLV and OLV, but is fairly similar to SIV, just as the scientists say.

 

There used to be a third point here: that the earliest documented AIDS case dated back to 1959. See question 9.2.

One school of thought holds that the "AIDS was a U.S. biological warfare experiment" myth was extensively spread as part of a dezinformatsiya campaign by Department V of the Soviet KGB (their `active measures' group). They may not have invented the premise (Soviet disinformation doctrine favored legends originated by third parties), but they added a number of signature details such as the name of the supposed development site (usually Fort Meade in Maryland) which still show up in most retellings.

 

According to a defector who was once the KGB chief rezident in Great Britain, the KGB promulgated this legend through controlled sources in Europe and the Third World. The Third World version (only) included the claim that HIV was the result of an attempt to build a "race bomb", a plague that would kill only non-whites.

 

Duesberg's theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a marker for people in AIDS high-risk groups. AIDS is not a contagious syndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe. AIDS is probably caused by conventional pathogenic factors: administration of blood transfusions or drugs, promiscuous male homosexual activity associated with drugs, acute parasitic infections, and malnutrition. Drugs such as AZT promote AIDS, rather than fight it. His theory is explained in detail in "Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation but not Causation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA V86 pp.755-764, (Feb. 1989).

 

Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg's AIDS theory to be unsupportable, although he was a respected researcher before he proposed it. There is no suggestion that his theories are the result of a political agenda or homophobia.

 

Details of the debate can be found in published rebuttals to Duesberg, such as in Nature V345 pp.659-660 (June 21, 1990), and in Duesberg's debate with Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science V241 pp.514-517 (1988).

 

Also see the sci.med.aids FAQ.

 

What About the Sailor with AIDS in 1959?

 

(The following information is from The Independent, 24 March 1995)

 

There is now good reason to think that the evidence for this case was fraudulent. The patient was David Carr, a 25 year old man. Most reports describe him as a sailor, but in fact his only known trip abroad was during his national service, when he visted Gibralter aboard HMS Whitby for two weeks. It is possible he visited Tangier at this time, but there is no evidence either way. There is also no evidence that he was gay (although firm evidence would have led to his arrest).

 

Carr died on 31 August 1959 in Manchester Royal Infirmary, almost certainly of an immune deficiency. His case was written up in The Lancet of 29 October 1960 by Trevor Stretton, John Leonard (his doctors) and George Williams (the pathologist). It was just a minor medical mystery. Then in the late eighties, Williams sent samples of tissue from Carr's body to his hospital's virology unit to be tested for AIDS. They tested positive. The test was repeated with a blind control. Still positive. The doctors went public with a short letter in the Lancet on 7 July 1990.

 

In 1992 Professor David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Centre in New York asked for tissue samples from Carr in order to sequence the viral DNA. He succeeded, but found that the sequence was identical to strains circulating in 1990. Further checks revealed that the tissue sample was from a recently deceased person, and that other samples, alledgedly also from Carr but with no sign of the virus, were actually from a different person.

 

At the very least these facts cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the diagnosis of AIDS in David Carr. They also give strong reason to suspect a case of scientific fraud.

 

Source: http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_9.html

 

Just some info i pulled up on the three AIDS theories.

[Sayonara]

Some thoughts on that:

1. [*]A gay sailor in the 1950s would be less likely to spread or contract sexually transmitted diseases than a straight sailor.[*]The idea that the CIA would develop bioweapons with their 'secret technology' is risible. Anyone suggesting such things clearly doesn't know what the CIA do, and therefore is not a reliable source on their movements.[*]Combining BLV and OLV would not produce a virus with a similar genetic makeup to SIV. So that's bollocks.

[/list=1]