Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Who Gave The Africans AIDS

97 posts in this topic

Posted

I honestly haven't read into it enough to truly believe it's a conspiracy either, I just loved that "that's not a question, it's a statement" line, so I had to utilize it. A good discussion starter too!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Holy triple post. My bad, slow internetz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

maybe someone needs AID in posting just once.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you claiming to be a professor of molecular biology and thus a Doctor. Can you prove it?

 

I'm not a doctor, I'm getting a PhD in biology and I routinely train undergraduates and masters students for basic micro and molecular biology techniques.  What my student went on to do is beyond my expertise, but I only mentioned her to illustrate the fact that people are working on cures.

 

I have no intention of proving what I do to you; feel free to believe me or not, nothing about my education gives me insight into this beyond what you can find from reading the papers available on this subject.  My actual work I think I've talked about elsewhere but I am currently studying the evolution and ecology of host/parasite interactions, such as virulence, transmission rate, prevalence, etc.  I do not work with HIV and am not claiming to be some expert in it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As with all conspiracy theories, I ask the question "Why?" If presumably dozens or even hundreds of people worked on a mission to create and spread a deadly virus, then what was the agenda? Give me one hypothetical reason that makes even a little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

As with all conspiracy theories, I ask the question "Why?" If presumably dozens or even hundreds of people worked on a mission to create and spread a deadly virus, then what was the agenda? Give me one hypothetical reason that makes even a little sense.

IMO, there are two possibilities.  One is it was an unintentional consequence of a vaccine whose ill effects were covered up through denial and misdirection.  Since the VAST majority does not understand complex virology, (especially in the 80's), it is easy to misdirect attention.  It is simply a matter of not talking about it.  The western world knows so little of Africa and even less of central Africa that little attention is paid to the suffering over there.  The media plays to the appetite of the masses, telling stories of Nazi conspiracies on one side of the mouth, and drumming up "research" to dispute it on the other.  The end result is a little understood epidemic of which pharmaceutical companies are making billions through the suffering of people that the west cares little about.

 

The other possibility is the intentional infection by government. First off, there is a precedent for the government willfully, and intentionally infecting blacks with deadly diseases.  The Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment lasted from the early 30's to the early 70's.  Government research into infectious and deadly diseases is ongoing and has been around for a long time. It is possible that this is the next phase in the process. The US Government has shown no qualms about testing its research on people, often on the poor and disenfranchised. Now the reasons could be something as simple as research, or it could be something more sinister.  Remember the Eugenics movement is an American Ideal first.  It is often hard for people to believe that any group of people could be so heinous, but remember that it was only in a decade and a half prior to the first real AIDs crisis where the US was in the midst of the Civil Rights movements.  The people who stumped about the "science" of segregation and the inferiority of the black race were still very much in political, military, and central intelligence power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

keep in mind there are also groups that are big on population control. ANY population. those are the ones that try to play God and who knows whats going on inside their heads that can effect all of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

IMO, there are two possibilities.  One is it was an unintentional consequence of a vaccine whose ill effects were covered up through denial and misdirection.  Since the VAST majority does not understand complex virology, (especially in the 80's), it is easy to misdirect attention.  It is simply a matter of not talking about it.  The western world knows so little of Africa and even less of central Africa that little attention is paid to the suffering over there.  The media plays to the appetite of the masses, telling stories of Nazi conspiracies on one side of the mouth, and drumming up "research" to dispute it on the other.  The end result is a little understood epidemic of which pharmaceutical companies are making billions through the suffering of people that the west cares little about.

 

I don't really think that it is likely that it was an unintentional side effect of a vaccine; scientific studies have repeatedly shown this was not the case.  On the other hand, what is possible is that the initial jump into humans by SIV could have been aided by serial needle contamination at some point during a vaccination program.  Bushmeat consumption allowed SIV infection, certain socioeconomic factors increased bushmeat consumpion in the early 20th century apparently, vaccination of those that had SIV then contaminated needles, which were then used on other people, spreading SIV, and if SIV mutated into HIV-1 then you've got the origin of HIV-1 anyway.  This is one theory; modelling appears to suggest it's possible, probably in the 30s.  However, all of the vaccine side-effect theories have been discredited by the scientific community.  The thing is, there have been other origins of HIV-1 it appears from the phylogenetic analyses, so it is very likely that there was more than one jump and it's unlikely it was a single side effect or anything like that.  Then there's HIV-2, which of course originated from a totally separate jump and a different SIV.

 

 

The other possibility is the intentional infection by government. First off, there is a precedent for the government willfully, and intentionally infecting blacks with deadly diseases.  The Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment lasted from the early 30's to the early 70's.  Government research into infectious and deadly diseases is ongoing and has been around for a long time. It is possible that this is the next phase in the process. The US Government has shown no qualms about testing its research on people, often on the poor and disenfranchised. Now the reasons could be something as simple as research, or it could be something more sinister.  Remember the Eugenics movement is an American Ideal first.  It is often hard for people to believe that any group of people could be so heinous, but remember that it was only in a decade and a half prior to the first real AIDs crisis where the US was in the midst of the Civil Rights movements.  The people who stumped about the "science" of segregation and the inferiority of the black race were still very much in political, military, and central intelligence power. 

 

I suppose it is possible, just like all of Venom's posts were possible, but I view that as conjecture with no support at all.  I feel that this idea is based on ignorance of the epidemiology of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

 

I don't really think that it is likely that it was an unintentional side effect of a vaccine; scientific studies have repeatedly shown this was not the case.  On the other hand, what is possible is that the initial jump into humans by SIV could have been aided by serial needle contamination at some point during a vaccination program.  Bushmeat consumption allowed SIV infection, certain socioeconomic factors increased bushmeat consumpion in the early 20th century apparently, vaccination of those that had SIV then contaminated needles, which were then used on other people, spreading SIV, and if SIV mutated into HIV-1 then you've got the origin of HIV-1 anyway.  This is one theory; modelling appears to suggest it's possible, probably in the 30s.  However, all of the vaccine side-effect theories have been discredited by the scientific community.  The thing is, there have been other origins of HIV-1 it appears from the phylogenetic analyses, so it is very likely that there was more than one jump and it's unlikely it was a single side effect or anything like that.  Then there's HIV-2, which of course originated from a totally separate jump and a different SIV.

 

 

 

I suppose it is possible, just like all of Venom's posts were possible, but I view that as conjecture with no support at all.  I feel that this idea is based on ignorance of the epidemiology of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

 

Everything you say is possible but unlikely.  And once again, HIV may or may not predate the mid 70's but AIDs does not.  Why. Now you can say that it is likely that it does but that would require the HIV origin being older to be a FACT not a hypothesis. 

 

And also the Government involvement is the one that is PROBABLE given the history of the people involved.  And no support? seriously? 

 

Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment

Cumpulsory Sterilization

Dr. Cornelius Rhodes

Pellagra

LSD

1990's experimental measles vaccine given to 1500 minority children in LA w/o knowledge of parents that it was not proven safe and was experimental   http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/newsletter/vaccinereactionjune1996.aspx

 

 

 

and that is just a small sample.  I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate what the government has done to be beyond suspicion.  In fact, they should be the primary and initial suspect in anything nefarious given the history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Everything you say is possible but unlikely.  And once again, HIV may or may not predate the mid 70's but AIDs does not.  Why. Now you can say that it is likely that it does but that would require the HIV origin being older to be a FACT not a hypothesis. 

 

And also the Government involvement is the one that is PROBABLE given the history of the people involved.  And no support? seriously? 

 

Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment

Cumpulsory Sterilization

Dr. Cornelius Rhodes

Pellagra

LSD

1990's experimental measles vaccine given to 1500 minority children in LA w/o knowledge of parents that it was not proven safe and was experimental   http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/newsletter/vaccinereactionjune1996.aspx

 

 

 

and that is just a small sample.  I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate what the government has done to be beyond suspicion.  In fact, they should be the primary and initial suspect in anything nefarious given the history.

 

It sounds like you are suggesting HIV does not cause AIDS, or did not cause AIDS until the 1970s.  Is that indeed your claim? 

 

HIV DOES predate the 70s and people most likely died of AIDS before 1970.  The thing is, HIV has a long incubation period and AIDS takes quite a while to kill people.  It is not surprising that given where and how HIV originated in Africa in the early part of the 20th century, AIDS cases would be hard to track down from this period.  There are at least two individuals suspected to have died in AIDS in the 1960s, and they were both in the Western world when they died despite extensive travels to Africa and/or Haiti. Do you know why you don't hear about AIDS until the 70s?  You say Americans know nothing about Africa now - how much do you think they knew in the early 20th century? 

 

It was not until the disease hit developed countries that it was detected because of the difference in medical care available.  HIV's origin has been shown to be at latest the 1930s and likely much earlier.  You can dispute this if you want, but empirical research and testing has suggested this is the case.  Preserved tissue samples have been found to be HIV positive from well before 1970, but we don't know how or if the people they were from died.  Using modern molecular dating techniques, we can take the known mutation rates of HIV strains as well as type 1/2, and the sequence data of HIV and SIV, and we can estimate the age of HIV VERY accurately.  You can dispute this stuff if you want but sequence analysis in fact what I do for a living so while I don't work with HIV and you don't need to trust me here but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that HIV strains of today originated in the 1970s.

 

Nothing you are providing says anything at all about HIV.  You have provided no support for government involvement in HIV.  Medicine in the early 20th century was often inhumane.  One of the ways malaria was shown to be transmitted through mosquito bites was by infecting prisoners with malaria.  So yes, I realize that the medical profession can do things we see as unethical today.  I am not doubting that.  But that does not suggest government involvement in *creating* HIV.  There is literally no evidence of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"And the band played on"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It sounds like you are suggesting HIV does not cause AIDS, or did not cause AIDS until the 1970s.  Is that indeed your claim? 

 

HIV DOES predate the 70s and people most likely died of AIDS before 1970.  The thing is, HIV has a long incubation period and AIDS takes quite a while to kill people.  It is not surprising that given where and how HIV originated in Africa in the early part of the 20th century, AIDS cases would be hard to track down from this period.  There are at least two individuals suspected to have died in AIDS in the 1960s, and they were both in the Western world when they died despite extensive travels to Africa and/or Haiti. Do you know why you don't hear about AIDS until the 70s?  You say Americans know nothing about Africa now - how much do you think they knew in the early 20th century? 

 

It was not until the disease hit developed countries that it was detected because of the difference in medical care available.  HIV's origin has been shown to be at latest the 1930s and likely much earlier.  You can dispute this if you want, but empirical research and testing has suggested this is the case.  Preserved tissue samples have been found to be HIV positive from well before 1970, but we don't know how or if the people they were from died.  Using modern molecular dating techniques, we can take the known mutation rates of HIV strains as well as type 1/2, and the sequence data of HIV and SIV, and we can estimate the age of HIV VERY accurately.  You can dispute this stuff if you want but sequence analysis in fact what I do for a living so while I don't work with HIV and you don't need to trust me here but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that HIV strains of today originated in the 1970s.

 

Nothing you are providing says anything at all about HIV.  You have provided no support for government involvement in HIV.  Medicine in the early 20th century was often inhumane.  One of the ways malaria was shown to be transmitted through mosquito bites was by infecting prisoners with malaria.  So yes, I realize that the medical profession can do things we see as unethical today.  I am not doubting that.  But that does not suggest government involvement in *creating* HIV.  There is literally no evidence of this.

Ok, so a virus that is not transmitted through the air transforms from 5 to 10 possible cases in all of history before it to 100's of millions of cases in the span of 2 years or so?  What happened in the 70's to all of a sudden give medical science eyes on this disease? Where was the technological jump that explains the 100's of millions of AIDs patients that apparently must have been there all along. 

 

No I am not saying that HIV doesn't produce AIDs.  What I am saying is that the process outlined by you for the origin of AID's is illogical.  It is only postulated that HIV is old.  The evidence for this is the presence of a similar virus (SIV) as well as evidence of cases of people that have immune difficiencies prior to the 70's.  We are expected to make the leap cognitively for the progression of the virus to the AID's stage.  We are given evidence of this through the what?  It is very easy to blame AIDs on any unknown death because of the nature of the syndrome.  Without an immune response any virus, disease, and several bacterium are deadly.  Being a bioligist I'm sure you know that.  But what caused the explosion in cases? How can something go from a small handful of cases to 100's of millions in a couple of years.  PSARs, Influenza neither were ever that potent and they could be considered the most virulent diseases of this generation. Both of which infect through the air.

 

And since I am not one for coincidence, why are both explosions of the AIDs epidemic lined up exactly with two separate and concurrent cases of vaccination programs through the CDC and WHO.  Both of these organizations have a history of criminal experimentation on minority (primarily black) citizens, as well as Africans.

 

And for the record, the Tuskegee Syphillis experiment ended in the 70's not the "early 20th century " only because it was publicized. 

did you even click the link?

 

 

 

 

edit: I never once said that HIV was created by the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites