Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Who Gave The Africans AIDS


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#61 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:33 PM

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. 

 

 

What are you talking about, 5-10 cases to 100s of millions?  Where are you even getting these numbers?  What technological jump?  I really am not sure what you are talking about here.  Exponential growth is really not that hard a concept to grasp, and while it is unlikely to take 5-10 to 100s of millions in a year (unless you're a bacteria! :D), but I am pretty sure that of the 250ish cases identified in 1981, 40 of them all were known to have had sex with one individual.  If one guy can give 40 people HIV, think how quickly it can spread, airborne or not.  There were ~50k reported cases by 1985, ~750,000 total by 2000, with like ~250k living with it in 2000.  Why do you think "100's of millions" were infected in the span of "2 years"?  

 

m021a2t1.gif

 

m021a2f1.gif

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/m...5021a2.htm#tab1 for source material.



#62 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:46 PM

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.

 

 

How is the process of AIDS illogical?  HIV isn't old.  Nor is SIV.  You're talking evolutionary timescales, and HIV is REALLY new... as in, 100ish years old at most.  This is because the environmental conditions in Africa changed HUGELY and that allowed for the development and then spread of HIV, where it then went to the west, and was subsequently identified; then, arguably, AIDS denialism caused an epidemic in Africa.  There is no cognitive leap here when you actually examine the prevalence data and understand the concept of exponential growth of a disease. I don't want to get into an argument with you over what diseases were most virulent, because while virulence and transmission rate are quite probably linked (this is actually my dissertation work :P), they are not the same thing. 

 

Also, it is NOT easy to blame AIDS on an "unknown death."  In order for an individual to be diagnosed with HIV today, they must either have HIV antigens in their blood or antibodies.  Following diagnosis with HIV, diagnosis with AIDS comes from the count of T cells in the blood dropping below a certain level and having a set of diseases that are known to be common with AIDS and extremely uncommon in individuals that are not immunocompromised.  In looking back at past cases to test for HIV/AIDS, they take tissue samples from that time period and test for the presence of HIV.  if HIV is present and an individual had symptoms that correspond to AIDS, then it is not a logical leap to say that person had AIDS.



#63 carpantherfan84

carpantherfan84

    Abductive Reasoner

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:37 PM

What are you talking about, 5-10 cases to 100s of millions?  Where are you even getting these numbers?  What technological jump?  I really am not sure what you are talking about here.  Exponential growth is really not that hard a concept to grasp, and while it is unlikely to take 5-10 to 100s of millions in a year (unless you're a bacteria! :D), but I am pretty sure that of the 250ish cases identified in 1981, 40 of them all were known to have had sex with one individual.  If one guy can give 40 people HIV, think how quickly it can spread, airborne or not.  There were ~50k reported cases by 1985, ~750,000 total by 2000, with like ~250k living with it in 2000.  Why do you think "100's of millions" were infected in the span of "2 years"?  

 

m021a2t1.gif

 

m021a2f1.gif

 

See http://www.cdc.gov/m...5021a2.htm#tab1 for source material.

I thought we were talking about Africa?

 

But okay, according to the graph a reasonable amount of growth from '81 to '00 is an increase of roughly 4 to 5 hundred percent. Now, lets pretend that Africans are people, not animals.  Meaning that while there has to be some consideration to less advanced medical technology, the idea that there is some "infinity variable"  i.e. mysterious African promiscuity is ridiculous.  That being said, I believe that a reasonable growth rate in comparison would be say 1000 percent over the same time frame.

 

In 2000, there were 24 million Africans infected with HIV with a suspected 100 percent death rate within 10 years.  About 6000 Africans die everyday throughout the continent. This is a decrease over the years as treatment has become more prevalent.  I am not a statistician and I dont know the formulas to extrapolate that over the correct timeline but it comes out to several million initially infected at the end of the '70s. Earlier you claimed that HIV has a long incubation period. This was used to explain why it took so long for AIDs to develop. That is not supported by evidence.  Those infected by HIV without the medicine of the '90s and '00s die within a year or two. How could a virus producing AID's become that deadly in an era of more advanced medicine but is extremely less deadly, in all recorded history before.  The SIV virus is not even close to being that deadly in Primates.  So several million people are infected with a virus that becomes extremely deadly at the same time health organizations were sent in to vaccinate them for another virus...



#64 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

SIV is not as deadly in primates possibly because it has had 30,000 years of co-evolution.  This is pretty common in disease theory, might have to do with the connection between virulence and transmission rate.  It does a disease little good to kill its host; it can't be passed on if that is the case.   As to HIV's incubation period, it can be up to six months before it can be detected, and people can have nearly a decade of latency before they die of it (though plenty of people have less).  You are right that incubation period was a bad term to use.  There are people that, without treatment, can die within 1 to 2 years even with a healthy lifestyle, but others can literally live for nearly a decade.  It all depends on how long the latency period lasts and if an opportunistic infection hits, and when.

 

There is no "African promiscuity myth," but there sure as fug was AIDS denialism by the government.  When you've got major nations telling their people not to worry, AIDS is fake, HIV is fake, and you have cultural traditions that increase the chance of transmission, you can have some huge problems.  There are plenty of reasons for the AIDS epidemic and hell it was going on probably as early as the 1970s in the Congo that the first AIDS epidemic hit Africa due to the crazy increase in prevalence of the HIV-associated infection cryptococcosis, but at the time, nobody knew what was causing it.  Now we can look back and say, yes, that's probably what people dying at the time had, but because medical care there was behind what we have in the US the best we have is a few samples here and there from the times, though there are quite a few records of it.  



#65 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:59 PM

The apartheid government.



#66 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:47 PM

The AIDS virus is at it's highest percentage in African countries with highest white population. The more southern on the African continent the higher the AIDS virus and the more racial conflict there exist due to the white population. It is obvious that the white minority in those states were using the AIDS virus the same way the whites used the smallpox virus on the native Americans to push them to extinction in the Americas.

 

The Europeans might not have created the disease in a lab(like the smallpox) but they figured they could use it as weapons for population cleansing. There is evidence that shows the Apartheid government were deeply involve in biological weapon creation. So they would use anything they can find to cleanse South Africa of the native black population. Fortunately they were unsuccessful but left a lot of people infected with that disease.

 

The positive side of this is we find out Africans are resilient and genetically strong. Europe is the gift that keep on giving, slavery, AIDS,...........Such savagery!



#67 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:49 PM

The AIDS virus is at it's highest percentage in African countries with highest white population. The more southern on the African continent the higher the AIDS virus and the more racial conflict there exist due to the white population. It is obvious that the white minority in those states were using the AIDS virus the same way the whites used the smallpox virus on the native Americans to push them to extinction in the Americas.

 

The Europeans might not have created the disease in a lab(like the smallpox) but they figured they could use it as weapons for population cleansing. There is evidence that shows the Apartheid government were deeply involve in biological weapon creation. So they would use anything they can find to cleanse South Africa of the native black population. Fortunately they were unsuccessful but left a lot of people infected with that disease.

 

The positive side of this is we find out Africans are resilient and genetically strong. Europe is the gift that keep on giving, slavery, AIDS,...........Such savagery!

 

What evidence do you have that it is being used for "racial cleansing"?

 

I'm curious if Thabo Mbeki was just a puppet of these people or what.



#68 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

What evidence do you have that it is being used for "racial cleansing"?

 

I'm curious if Thabo Mbeki was just a puppet of these people or what.

If you ever read about Southern African history it's deeply rooted on ethnic cleansing. The goal of establishing a complete white nation in southern africa is no secret. Racial genocide is nothing strange to southern africa. Although I may not have an actual seal document from the Apartheid government that says they were involve in ethnic cleansing practice but circumstantial evidence and common sense alone is all that's needed. There was no difference from the Nazis government and Apartheid. But unlike the Jews, the African population was vast.

 

Believe me, the Apartheid government like the Nazis didn't have any moral standard. Nothing was beyond them and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

 



#69 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,747 posts
  • LocationSC

Posted 25 June 2013 - 06:39 PM

Probably white people.


Actually, it was Saints fans.

I don't know what color they were.

#70 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:09 PM

If you ever read about Southern African history it's deeply rooted on ethnic cleansing. The goal of establishing a complete white nation in southern africa is no secret. Racial genocide is nothing strange to southern africa. Although I may not have an actual seal document from the Apartheid government that says they were involve in ethnic cleansing practice but circumstantial evidence and common sense alone is all that's needed. There was no difference from the Nazis government and Apartheid. But unlike the Jews, the African population was vast.

 

Believe me, the Apartheid government like the Nazis didn't have any moral standard. Nothing was beyond them and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

 

While I do not doubt what you are saying, this does NOT prove what you said.  There is plenty of evidence that the AIDS denialism of the South African government and indeed of other African nations in the 90s and 2000s, and while those nations have legitimate issues with organizations like the WHO etc, I do not think your characterization in your previous post is supported by the facts as far as the origin of the AIDS epidemic there.



#71 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:09 PM

If you ever read about Southern African history it's deeply rooted on ethnic cleansing. The goal of establishing a complete white nation in southern africa is no secret. Racial genocide is nothing strange to southern africa. Although I may not have an actual seal document from the Apartheid government that says they were involve in ethnic cleansing practice but circumstantial evidence and common sense alone is all that's needed. There was no difference from the Nazis government and Apartheid. But unlike the Jews, the African population was vast.

 

Believe me, the Apartheid government like the Nazis didn't have any moral standard. Nothing was beyond them and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

 

While I do not doubt what you are saying, this does NOT prove what you said.  There is plenty of evidence that the AIDS denialism of the South African government and indeed of other African nations in the 90s and 2000s, and while those nations have legitimate issues with organizations like the WHO etc, I do not think your characterization in your previous post is supported by the facts as far as the origin of the AIDS epidemic there.



#72 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,798 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:04 PM

I read that cases of what would later be known as AIDS were recorded in St Louis in the late 60s (teenage male prostitute), Paris and Denmark in the 70s (white heterosexual families with ties to West Africa) so I never bought into any conspiracy theories. 

 

 



#73 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,356 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 09:17 PM

we don't know that the male from the 60s was a prostitute, Gazi, but it is possible.  Furthermore, there are blood samples from people with HIV from earlier.

 

There are also a bunch of diseases which later became AIDS indicators that show up at abnormally high frequencies in Africa in the 70s, with really high mortality rates unlike what those diseases normally see... so...



#74 Guest_HelloWorld_*

Guest_HelloWorld_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:45 AM

While I do not doubt what you are saying, this does NOT prove what you said.  There is plenty of evidence that the AIDS denialism of the South African government and indeed of other African nations in the 90s and 2000s, and while those nations have legitimate issues with organizations like the WHO etc, I do not think your characterization in your previous post is supported by the facts as far as the origin of the AIDS epidemic there.

So you're saying the whole world were well informed by practicing safe sex except Africans? You're saying the muslims with their 7 wives were very AIDS enlightened while the majority christian southern Africans were sucking each others' blood? I made no comment as to the origin of the AIDS epidemic but circumstantial evidence and the practice of the Apartheid government is enough to deduction it was in their interest to spread the virus among the African majority. That is the reason quarantine and segregation is always so vital for white populations. It just makes sense.

 

You mentioned those SA nations have a legitimate issue with the WHO, it seems like you're trying to trying to pass the blame to them instead of the white population. They're one and the same. The Apartheid/white government was running the WHO in the Southern African region during that period.

 

Evidence? Yes. The disproportionate number of people with AIDS  in African countries with minority white population. That is NOT a coincidence. You speak like it's beyond white people to have done this when genocide and slavery was routine in that region.

 



#75 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,136 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 11:54 AM

Wow




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.