Discussion:
More on A.I.D.S being manmade...
(too old to reply)
seth72
2004-09-10 16:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Blaming Gays, Blacks, and Chimps for AIDS
Are species-jumping animal virus experiments responsible for the HIV
Holocaust?

by Alan Cantwell, M.D.

Dr. Alan Cantwell writes on AIDS-origin theories
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic there have been persistent rumors
that the disease was man-made, and that HIV was deliberately "introduced"
into the American gay and the African black populations as a germ warfare
experiment. This so-called conspiracy theory was quickly squelched by
virologists and molecular biolologists, who blamed primates in the African
bush and human sexuality for the introduction and spread of HIV.


In the fall of 1986 the Soviets shocked the world by claiming that HIV was
secretly developed at Fort Detrick, the U.S. Army's biological warfare unit.
Although the claim was dismissed as "infectious propaganda", Russian
scientists had worked hand in hand with biological warfare scientists in the
transfer of viruses and virus-infected tissue into various non-human
primates (monkeys, apes, chimps) during the 1970s before AIDS appeared. With
improved international relationships, the Russian accusation vanished.

Although evidence supporting the man-made theory has never been mentioned in
the major U.S. media, the theory continues to be ridiculed. For example, in
the San Francisco Chronicle,( "Quest for the Origin of AIDS", January 14,
2001), William Carlsen writes: "In the early years of the AIDS epidemic,
theories attempting to explain the origin of the disease ranged from the
comic to the bizarre: a deadly germ escaped from a secret CIA laboratory;
God sent the plague down to punish homosexuals and drug addicts; it came
from outer space, riding on the tail of a comet."

AIDS certainly did not come from the hand of God or outer space. However,
there is ample evidence to suspect the hand of man in the outbreak of AIDS
that first began in the late 1970s in New York City.

Creating AIDS in animals before the epidemic

In 1974 veterinarians actually created an AIDS-like disease when newborn
chimps were removed from their mothers and weaned exclusively on
virus-infected milk from cows infected with "bovine C-type virus." Within a
year the chimps died of leukemia and pneumocystis pneumonia (the "gay
pneumonia" of AIDS). Both diseases had never been observed in chimps before
this virus-transfer experiment.

Also downplayed is the laboratory creation of feline leukemia and "cat AIDS"
by the transfer of HIV-like cat retroviruses in the mid-1970s. These
experiments were conducted at Harvard by Myron (Max) Essex, later to become
a famous AIDS researcher. All this man-made creation of AIDS in laboratory
animals directly preceded the "mysterious" 1979 introduction of HIV into gay
men, the most hated minority in America.

Nowadays, scientists hunt for "ancestor" viruses of HIV in chimps in the
African wild and ignore all the immunosuppressive viruses that were created
in virus laboratories shortly before AIDS. No consideration is given to any
of these lab viruses as possible man-made ancestors of the many "strains" of
HIV (and HIV-2) that jumped species to produce AIDS in humans.

The gay experiments that preceded AIDS (1978-1981)

Scientists also discount any connection between the official outbreak of
AIDS in 1981 and the experimental hepatitis B vaccine program (1978-1981) at
the New York Blood Center in Manhattan that used gays as guinea pigs shortly
before the epidemic. Curiously, the exact origin of AIDS in the United
States remains unstudied. Health authorities simply blame promiscuous gay
men, but never adequately explain how a black heterosexual African disease
could have transformed itself exclusively into a white young gay male
disease in Manhattan.

Researchers claim HIV incubated in Africa for more that a half century until
AIDS broke out there in 1982. However, in the U.S. there was no incubation
period for gay men. As soon as homosexuals signed up as guinea pigs for
government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments, they began to die with
a strange virus of unknown origin. The hepatitis B experiments began in
Manhattan in the fall of 1978; the first few cases of AIDS (all young gays
from Manhattan) were reported to the CDC in 1979.

Scientists have also failed to explain how a brand new herpes virus was also
introduced exclusively into gays, along with HIV, in the late 1970s. This
herpes virus is now believed to be the cause of Kaposi's sarcoma, the
so-called "gay cancer" of AIDS. Before AIDS, Kaposi's sarcoma was never seen
in healthy young men. Identified a decade after HIV, in 1994, this KS virus
is closely related to a primate cancer-causing herpes virus extensively
studied and transferred in animal laboratories in the decade before AIDS.

Also downplayed to the public is a new microbe (Mycoplasma penetrans), also
of unknown origin, that was introduced into homosexuals, along with HIV and
the new herpes virus. Thus, not one but three new infectious agents were
inexplicably transferred into the gay population at the start of the
epidemic (HIV, the herpes KS virus, and M.penetrans).

In his book, Virus [2000], Luc Montagnier (the French virologist who
co-discovered HIV) blames promiscuous American gay tourists for bringing
this new mycoplasma to Africa, and for bringing back HIV. He provides no
evidence for this homophobic theory. Nor does he mention the various
mycoplasmas that were passed around in the 1970s in scientific labs, and the
fact that these microbes were frequent contaminants in virus cultures and
vaccines.

Why are all these simultaneous introductions of new infectious agents into
gay men ignored by scientists? Surely a credible explanation would be
important in determining the origin of HIV and AIDS.

Why are scientists so opposed to the man-made theory? And why do they
believe so passionately in the chimp theory? One explanation might be that
scientists don't want the public to know what happened to the tens of
thousands of imported primates who were held captive in laboratories
throughout the world in the decade before AIDS.

The forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (1964-1977)

Rarely mentioned by AIDS scientists and media reporters is the fact that
surgeons have been transplanting chimpanzee parts (and chimp viruses) into
people for decades. When Keith Reemtsma died in June 2000, at age 74, he was
hailed as a pioneer in cross-species organ transplants (now known as
xenotransplantation). By 1964 he had already placed six chimpanzee kidneys
into six patients. All his patients died, but eventually Reemtsma succeeded
in many successful human-to-human organ transplants.

Much more likely to have spread primate (chimp and monkey) viruses to human
beings is the largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP). This
research program was responsible for the development, the production, the
seeding, and the deployment of various animal cancer and immunosuppressive
AIDS-like viruses and retroviruses. These laboratory created viruses were
capable of inducing disease when transferred between animal species and also
when transplanted into human cells and tissue.

The SVCP began in 1964 as a government-funded program of the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. Originally designed to study
leukemia, the program was soon enlarged to study all forms of cancer. The
scope of the program was international and included scientists from Japan,
Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, and Africa. The mission of the SVCP
was to collect various human and animal cancers from around the world and to
grow large amounts of cancer-causing viruses. As a result, thousands of
liters of dangerous man-made viruses were adapted to human cells and shipped
around the world to various laboratories. The annual reports of the SVCP
contain proof that species jumping of animal viruses was a common occurrence
in labs a decade before AIDS.

The SVCP gathered together the nation's top virologists, biochemists,
immunologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists, to determine the
role of viruses and retroviruses in the production of human cancer. Many of
the most prestigious medical institutions were involved in this program.

Connected with the SVCP were the most famous future American AIDS
scientists, such as Robert Gallo (the co-discoverer of HIV), Max Essex of
"cat AIDS" fame, and Peter Duesberg, who claims HIV does not cause AIDS.
Gallo and Essex were also the first to promote the widely accepted African
green monkey theory of AIDS. This theory was proven erroneous as far back as
1988, but was heavily circulated among AIDS educators and the media until
the theory was superceded by the chimp theory in the late 1990s.

Biowarfare research, primate research and the SVCP

Also joining forces with the SVCP at the NCI were the military's biological
warfare researchers. On October 18, 1971, President Richard Nixon announced
that the army's biowarfare laboratories at nearby Fort Detrick, Maryland,
would be converted to cancer research. As part of Nixon's so-called War on
Cancer, the military biowarfare unit was retitled the new Frederick Cancer
Research Center, and Litton Bionetics was named as the military's prime
contractor for this project.

According to the 1971 SVPC annual report, the primary task of the now
jointly connected National Cancer Institute-Frederick Cancer Research Center
was "the large scale production of oncogenic (cancer-causing) and suspected
oncogenic viruses to meet research needs on a continuing basis." Special
attention was given to primate viruses (the alleged African source of HIV)
and "the successful propagation of significant amounts of human candidate
viruses." Candidate viruses were animal or human viruses that might cause
human cancers.

For these experiments a steady supply of research animals (monkeys,
chimpanzees, mice, and cats) was necessary; and multiple breeding colonies
were established for the SVCP. Primates were shipped in from West Africa and
Asia for experimentation; and virus-infected animals were shipped out to
various labs worldwide.

By 1971, a total of 2,274 primates had been inoculated at Bionetics Research
Laboratories, under contract to Fort Detrick. Over 1000 of these monkeys had
already died or had been transferred to other primate centers. (Some animals
were eventually released back into the wild). By the early 1970s,
experimenters had transferred cancer-causing viruses into several species of
monkeys, and had also isolated a monkey virus (Herpesvirus saimiri) that
would have a close genetic relationship to the new Kaposi's sarcoma herpes
virus that produced the "gay cancer" of AIDS in 1979.

In order to induce primates and other research animals to acquire cancer,
their immune system was deliberately suppressed by drugs, radiation, or
cancer-causing chemicals or substances. The thymus gland and/or the spleen
were removed, and viruses were injected into newborn animals or into the
womb of pregnant animals. Some animals were injected with malaria to keep
them chronically sick and immunodepressed.

The U.S. is the world's leading consumer of primates, and 55,000 are used
yearly in medical research. Primates (especially newborn and baby
chimpanzees) are the most favored lab animals because they are similar
biochemically and immunologically to human beings. Humans share 98.4% of
their DNA with chimpanzees. Chimps were extensively used by SVCP because
there would be no official testing of "candidate" lab viruses on humans.

In the decade before AIDS, Gallo was a project officer of a primate study
contracted by Bionetics that pumped cancerous human tissue, as well as a
variety of chicken and monkey viruses, into newborn macaques (a small
species of monkey that carries a close relative of the KS virus).

Recorded in the 1971 SVCP report (NIH-71-2025), Gallo's project notes state:

"Inasmuch as tests for the biological activity of candidate human viruses
will not be tested in the human species, it is imperative that another
system be developed for these determinations, and subsequently for the
evaluation of vaccines or other measures of control. The close phylogenetic
relationship of the lower primates to man justifies utilization of these
animals for these purposes."

Researchers at Bionetics injected human and animal cancer material into
various species of monkeys to determine the cancer effect. Newborn and
irradiated monkeys were injected with blood ("using multiple sites and
volumes as large as possible") taken from various forms of human leukemia.
In other studies, tissue cultures infected with various animal viruses were
inoculated into primates. How many "new" and "emerging" viruses were created
and adapted to human tissue and to various primates is not known. Some
primates were released back into the wild carrying lab viruses with them.
The possible spread of these lab viruses to other animals in the wild has
been ignored by scientists searching for the origin of HIV and its close
relatives in African animals.

Cats were also bred for leukemia and sarcoma cancer studies. Germ free
colonies of inbred mice were established. Mouse cancer viruses were
manipulated to produce resistant and non-resistant strains. These adapted
viruses would be employed in the 1980s in human gene replacement
experiments. Such experiments utilized a weakened strain of the mouse
leukemia virus to infect and "taxi-in" the missing genes to
genetically-defective human beings.

The end of the SVCP and the birth of AIDS

By 1977 the SVCP came to an inglorious end. According to Gallo,
"Scientifically, the problem was that no one could supply clear evidence of
any kind of human tumor virus, not even a DNA virus, and most researchers
refused to concede that viruses played any role in human cancers.
Politically, the Virus Cancer Program was vulnerable because it attracted a
great deal of money and attention and had failed to produce dramatic,
visible results."

Despite all this, the SVCP was the birthplace of genetic engineering,
molecular biology, and the human genome project. More than any other program
it built up the field of animal retrovirology, which led to the vital
understanding of cancer and immunosuppressive retroviruses in humans. As the
SVCP was winding down, thousands of gay men were signing up as guinea pigs
in government-sponsored hepatitis B vaccine experiments in New York, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco. These same cities would soon become the three
primary epicenters for the new "gay-related immune deficiency syndrome,"
later known as AIDS.

Two years after the termination of the SCVP, the introduction of HIV into
gay men (along with a herpes virus and a mycoplasma) miraculously revived
retroviral research and made Gallo the most famous scientist in the world.
Could virus-contaminated hepatitis vaccines lie at the root of AIDS? In the
early 1970s the hepatitis B vaccine was developed in chimpanzees. To this
day, some people are fearful about taking the hepatitis B vaccine because of
its original connection to gay men and AIDS.

Was HIV (and the KS herpes virus and a new mycoplasma) introduced into gays
during these vaccine trials when thousands of homosexuals were injected in
Manhattan beginning in 1978, and in the West Coast cities in 1980-1981?

As mentioned, the first gay AIDS cases erupted in Manhattan a few months
after the gay experiment began at the NY Blood Center. When a blood test for
HIV became available in the mid-1980s, the Center's stored gay blood
specimens were reexamined. Most astonishing is the statistically significant
fact that 20% of the gay men who volunteered for the hepatitis B experiment
in New York were discovered to be HIV-positive in 1980 (a year before the
AIDS epidemic became "official" in 1981). This signifies that Manhattan gays
in 1980 had the highest incidence of HIV anywhere in the world, including
Africa, the supposed birthplace of HIV and AIDS. And epidemic cases in
Africa did not appear until 1982.

Although denied by the AIDS establishment, a few researchers are convinced
that these vaccine experiments served as the vehicle through which HIV was
introduced into the gay population. My own extensive research into the
hepatitis B experiments is presented in AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An
Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic [1988], and in Queer Blood: The
Secret AIDS Genocide Plot [1993].

These books also debunk the preposterous "Patient Zero" story of 1987, which
claimed a promiscuous gay Canadian airline steward brought AIDS to America.
The highly implausible story was sensationalized in the media and served to
further obscure the origin of AIDS in America and blame gay promiscuity.
Even Montagnier is doubtful that the U.S. epidemic could have developed from
a single patient.

Never mentioned by proponents of the chimp theory is the fact that the New
York Blood Center established a chimp virus laboratory in West Africa in
1974. One of the purposes of VILAB II, at the Liberian Institute for
Biomedical Research in Robertsfield, Liberia, was to develop the hepatitis B
vaccine in chimps. A few years later this vaccine was inoculated into gays
at the Center.

Chimps were captured from various parts of West Africa and brought to VILAB.
Alfred Prince, Head of virology at the NY Blood Center, has been the
director of Vilab for the past 25 years. The lab prides itself by releasing
"reha bilitated" chimps back into the wild.

Also closely allied with "pre-AIDS" development of a hepatitis B vaccine is
the little publicized primate colony outside New York City called LEMSIP
(the Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery). Until disbanded in
1997, LEMSIP supplied New York area scientists with primates and primate
parts for transplantation and virus research.

Founded in 1965, LEMSIP was affiliated with the New York University Medical
Center, where the first cases of AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma were
discovered in 1979. Researchers at NYU Medical Center were also heavily
involved in the development of the experimental hepatitis B vaccine used in
gays; and the Medical Center received government grants and contracts
connected with biological warfare research beginning in 1969, according to
Leonard Horowitz, author of Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola [1996].

Scientific disinformation and the 1959 HIV-positive blood test from Africa

By predating HIV back to the 1930s, the chimp theory effectively discredits
the man-made theory of AIDS, which dates the introduction of HIV to the late
1970s. Only time will tell whether the chimp theory will hold up to further
scientific scrutiny.

Conspiracy theorists believe some wildly popular AIDS origin stories in the
press reek of scientific disinformation. One example is the Patient Zero
story. Another is the media blitz surrounding the English sailor who
supposedly contracted AIDS in 1959. This now-disproven story made worldwide
headlines in 1990 and obviously served to contradict the underground
conspiracy theory (particularly among African-Americans) that AIDS was
man-made.

The New York Times (July 24, 1990) declared:

"The case also refutes the widely publicized charges made by Soviet
officials several years ago that AIDS arose from a virus that had escaped
from a laboratory experiment that went awry or was a biological warfare
agent. The human retrovirus group to which the AIDS virus belongs was
unknown at the time. Nor did scientists then have the genetic engineering
techniques needed to create a virus."

Several years later, the case was discovered to be not a case of AIDS
because the sailor's tissue remains were accidentally (or deliberately)
contaminated with HIV.

In 1998 the media alerted the public to further evidence that AIDS started
in Africa. The proof consisted of an old 1959 stored frozen blood specimen
discovered to be HIV-positive. Researchers claimed the tiny amount of serum
contained fragments of HIV "closely related" to a virus found in 3
chimpanzees in the African wild and in the frozen remains of a chimp named
Marilyn, discovered in a freezer at Fort Detrick.

The 1959 specimen was obtained from a Bantu man living in Kinshasa, the
Congo. His name and health status were not recorded. Details of the history
and testing of this specimen (later heralded as the "world's oldest
HIV-positive blood sample") are recorded in The River: A Journey to the
Source of HIV and AIDS [1999], by journalist Edward Hooper who theorizes
that HIV was introduced into Africans via the polio vaccine programs in the
late 1950s. Hooper claims the polio vaccine was prepared using chimp kidney
cells contaminated with the ancestor virus of HIV.

When tested for HIV in the mid-1980s, the 1959 blood sample was the only
specimen out of 700 stored frozen Congo bloods that tested positive for HIV.
Originally collected by Arno Motulsky on a Rockefeller grant, the African
sample was one of many sent to the University of Washington in Seattle and
used for genetic testing and included in a report, "Population Genetic
Studies," published in 1966. Around 1970, the remaining 672 frozen bloods
were flown to Emory University in Atlanta for further genetic tests.

In 1985 the specimens again changed hands, this time for HIV testing by
Andre Nahmias, a virologist and animal researcher associated with the Yerkes
Primate Center at Emory. The Congo specimens were tested along with 500
other blood specimens taken from blacks living in sub-Saharan Africa between
the years 1959 and 1982. Initially over 90% of specimens taken in 1959
tested positive for HIV by the ELISA test. However, these HIV-positive tests
were later determined to be false-positive. After the examinations at Emory,
the specimens were shipped to Harvard University in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, for HIV testing in Max Essex' lab.

Three specimens initially tested HIV-positive, but finally only the 1959
specimen from the unidentified Bantu man was confirmed HIV- positive. Around
the time of these examinations, Essex's lab was unknowingly contaminated
with primate viruses.

In 1986, Essex discovered a new "human" AIDS virus that later proved to be a
contaminating monkey virus. The source of the primate virus traced back to a
captive monkey at a primate center in nearby Southborough, Massachusetts.
This primate contamination at his lab resulted in the erroneous green monkey
theory, heavily popularized by Gallo and the media.

Also unpublicized is the little known fact that Gallo's lab at the National
Cancer Institute was plagued with contamination by primate viruses. In 1975
he reported a new human "HL-23" virus that eventually proved to be three
contaminating ape primate viruses (gibbon-ape virus, simian sarcoma virus,
and baboon endogenous virus). Gallo claims he has no idea how these viruses
contaminated his research.

In 1996 Hooper convinced Nahmias to turn over the remaining 1959 specimen to
David Ho of Rockefeller University in Manhattan for PCR testing. In 1996 Ho
was named Time magazine's "Man of the Year", at a time when few people had
ever heard of him. Ho is also the director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS
Research Center, affiliated with Rockefeller University since 1996. The
Diamond Center is also now connected with the New York Blood Center, home of
the gay vaccine experiments that gave birth to AIDS.

Ho determined the tiny amount of the remaining specimen did not contain live
virus, nor was the complete virion of the virus present. Instead, some
fragments of the virus (about 15% of the total genome) were tested and
presented to the scientific world as the oldest specimen of HIV in the
world. Ho's PCR results cannot be confirmed by independent investigators
because the 1959 specimen is now totally used up.

When published in the journal Nature on February 5, 1998 ("An African HIV-1
sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin of the epidemic"),
Hooper's name appeared on the report, along with Ho, Bette Korber, Nahmias,
and others, The report was heavily publicized as proof that HIV existed in
the African population in 1959.

Although there are no HIV-positive tissue specimens from Africa from the
1960s and 1970s, and no proven cases of AIDS either, Hooper relies heavily
on this 1959 test to support his theory that HIV entered the African
population via the polio vaccines programs in the late 1950s.

In The River Hooper quickly dismisses the claims of physician Robert
Strecker, the first whistle-blower of man-made AIDS, as well as the research
in Horowitz's Emerging Viruses, and in my own books, AIDS & The Doctors of
Death, and Queer Blood.

In condemning AIDS biowarfare research, Hooper declares, "Sadly, supporters
of the Streckers have continued to peddle their ill-informed and outdated
versions of the myth, blaming variously the Soviets, the CIA, the Germans,
and the World Health Organization (WHO) well into the nineties." He
dismisses the hepatitis B vaccine connection to AIDS by noting that only two
of the 826 gay vaccinees had developed AIDS by 1983.

Hooper ignores the fact that by 1981 over 20% of the men in the trials were
HIV-positive and that by 1982, over 30% of the men were HIV-positive. He
dismisses the World Health Organization's African smallpox vaccine
connection by saying, "there is no reason for either HIV or SIV [simian
immunodeficiency virus] to be accidentally present in the vaccine." Hooper
fails to consider the possibility that the vaccines could have been
deliberately contaminated with HIV. Hooper has been a United Nations
official, but no details of this are included in his book .

Despite his massive research, Hooper seems naïve about the continuing
transfer of viruses between various primate species at primate centers. For
example, in 1995 he interviewed Preston Marx at LEMSIP. At that time Marx
was a representative of David Ho's organization, the Aaron Diamond Research
Center.

Hooper writes:

"I was shocked by the cavalier way in which tissues and sera from one
species had been introduced into other species, long after the risks of
cross-species transfer had been highlighted by the SV40 [polio vaccine]
debacle, and I was astonished that survivors from troops that had been
stricken by mystery illnesses could have been casually sold to other
centers, for use in experiments there. Furthermore, this apparent lack of
monitoring and central control seemed to be echoed in other fields, like
xenotransplantation (the transplanting of organ or cells from one species to
another) - and here, of course, the implications were even more
frightening."

By predating his polio vaccine theory back to the late 1950s, Hooper greatly
simplified his theory of AIDS origin. He ignored all those animal viruses
that were placed into human tissue in the 60s and 70s, and all those
dangerous viral creations that were genetically altered for cancer research,
vaccine research, and secret biological warfare.

The chimp in the freezer at Fort Detrick

On February 1, 1999 Lawrence K Altman, longtime physician-writer for The New
York Times, dutifully reported "the riddle of the origin of the AIDS virus
has apparently been solved." A team of researchers, headed by Beatrice Hahn
at the University of Alabama, performed viral studies on three chimps in the
African wild and had also studied the frozen remains of a chimp, discovered
by accident in a freezer at Fort Detrick. The chimp had tested positive for
HIV in 1985. On the basis of all this research, Hahn declared that a common
subspecies of chimp (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) was the animal source of
the virus "most closely " related to HIV.

In a media blitz U.S. government scientists presented a phylogenetic
ancestral "family tree" of primate viruses (which few people could
understand) to prove that HIV was genetically descended from a chimp virus
in the African bush. Molecular analysis of virus genetic data, performed by
Bette Korber and the supercomputer Nirvana at the Los Alamos National Labor
atory in New Mexico, indicated that HIV had jumped species from a chimp to a
human in Africa around the year 1930. (Los Alamos is the official home of
nuclear bomb-building, alleged Chinese spies, and the laboratory which
directed secret human radiation experiments on unsuspecting civilians from
the 1940s up to the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.)

Beatrice Hahn theorized that the epidemic started when a hunter cut himself
while butchering chimp meat and subsequently became infected. Scientists
readily accepted Hahn's notion that the AIDS virus and its closest relatives
jumped species from chimps to humans on multiple occasions, thereby
explaining the origin of the three separate subtypes of HIV-1 (M, N, and O),
as well as HIV-2.

Chimps in West Africa are hunted for food, as well as for medical
experimentation. Young chimps are especially prized for scientific research
and are usually caught by shooting their mothers. Many die from stress and
inhumane conditions during capture and transport to laboratories and zoos in
Western nations.

Due to all this killing, chimps are now an endangered species. During the
past century the African chimp population has dropped from two million to
less than 150,000. Despite the mass killing of chimps, they are still blamed
for causing the worldwide epidemic of AIDS.

Beatrice Hahn is no stranger to primate theories, having worked in Gallo's
lab when he was heavily promoting the green monkey theory in the mid-1980s
and the "close relationship" of the monkey virus to HIV. Now Hahn's virus
was claimed to be a closer relative than the contaminating monkey virus in
Essex' lab that formed the basis of the false green monkey theory.

Media journalists paid no attention to these discrepancies. Hahn's new chimp
findings, along with the old 1959 blood specimen, fully convinced the AIDS
establishment, and an adoring media, that Africa was indeed the source of
HIV and the AIDS epidemic.

The 2000 London Origin of AIDS Conference

When Hooper's book appeared in the fall of 1998, molecular scientists
quickly used the new chimp virus data to completely discredit Hooper's polio
vaccine theory. AIDS in Africa could not be caused by a virus jumping
species in the 50s if it had already jumped species back in the 1930s.
Researchers refused to believe scientists could have played any role in the
origin of HIV and AIDS.

Hooper bypassed the biowarfare theory by predating HIV back to the 50s. Now
scientists bypassed Hooper by dating HIV back several decades earlier. The
fact that there was no African epidemic until the early 1980s did not seem
pertinent. To make their view official, a small group of scientists proposed
an "invitation only" meeting to settle the origin matter once and for all.

In October 2000 the Royal Society of London held a two-day conference on the
origins of HIV. Obviously, the biowarfare theory of AIDS was not discussed.
On the contrary, one professor emphatically declared "all human infectious
diseases have an animal origin." Although there never was a disease like
AIDS (until scientists started to flagrantly pass viruses around to
repeatedly break the species barrier ), the same professor declared that
"natural transfer of these infections is a common event in animal
populations."

Using the viral fragments from the 1959 specimen and comparing them with the
select viruses contained in the data bank at Los Alamos , Betty Korber
refined her computer calculations to establish a likely date of 1940, "with
confidence levels extending from 1871 to 1955." The Rega Institute in
Antwerp estimated the transfer could have occurred between 1590 and 1760,
with 1675 the most likely date.

Hooper spoke but his views were largely ignored by the molecular biologists.
Preston Marx warned about more human diseases caused by viruses emerging
from primates, None of the speakers mentioned what happened to the thousands
of liters of animal viruses that were passed around the world by the Special
Virus Cancer Program in the decade before AIDS.

Instead, the London conferees alerted the public to a new view of medical
science, championed by the virologists. The "Last Word" at the conference
was that "all human viral infections were initially zoonotic (animal) in
origin. Animals will always provide a reservoir for viruses that could
threaten human populations in the future." And the scientists predicted:
"There is still a myriad of current unknown viruses in animal populations on
land, sea, and air with the potential to cause human disease." Apparently,
none of these viruses were in animal laboratories.

AIDS, cancer, genetic science and covert human medical experimentation

Although rejected completely by most scientists, the man-made theory of AIDS
is a rational explanation for the origin of HIV. This theory is partly based
on an awareness of the gene-polluting activities and species jumping virus
experiments of irresponsible scientists during the two decades before the
epidemic.

In addition, the record clearly shows that scientists and biowarfare
scientists experiment secretly on unsuspecting people. Horrific aspects of
the Cold War Human Radiation Experiments attest to the fact that covert
medical experimentation is not an "X-Files" fantasy or a totally paranoid
belief.

It is easy to understand why researchers might want to obscure the man-made
origin for AIDS and blame primates. It is now apparent that most of the
major researchers promoting the African primate origin of AIDS were
connected with the largely secret Special Virus Cancer Program, or are
scientists involved in the transfer of viruses in animal research,
particularly primate research.

From the very beginning of the epidemic, researchers disclaimed any
connection between AIDS and cancer, as well as any connection between HIV
and animal retrovirus cancer research. In 1984, Gallo originally named HIV a
cancer-causing "leukemia/lymphoma" virus. To obscure the cancer connection,
the name was immediately changed to "lymphotropic" virus.

My own Kaposi's sarcoma research, first published in medical journals in
1981, showed "cancer-associated bacteria" as possible infectious agents in
"classic" KS tumors. Before HIV was discovered in 1984, additional papers in
1982 and 1983 showed similar cancer bacteria in the enlarged lymph nodes and
KS tumors of gay men with "gay cancer" and AIDS. Since the 1950s,
cancer-associated bacteria have been linked to viruses, as well as to
mycoplasmas. This aspect of cancer research has been suppressed for decades
by the cancer establishment. A history of this research and its relevancy to
AIDS is the subject of my books, AIDS: The Mystery and the Solution [1984]
and The Cancer Microbe: The Hidden Killer in Cancer, AIDS and Other Immune
Diseases [1990].

Gallo, in his 1991 book, falsely claims that no infectious agent had ever
been found in KS. The refusal of AIDS scientists to recognize cancer microbe
research, published in peer reviewed scientific journals, is a further
indication that the AIDS establishment seeks to control all aspects of HIV
research in such a way as to never connect the origin of AIDS with previous
cancer research and covert biological warfare research. This cover-up
conceals the possibility that AIDS, in reality, is a new man-made form of
infectious and contagious cancer.

Could a small coterie of government scientists concoct a bogus (but
scientifically plausible) primate theory of AIDS origin and bamboozle the
public to believe it in order to cover-up the truth?

In the 1930s the highly respected German scientific community was entirely
transformed by fascist beliefs proclaiming the genetic inferiority of the
Jews and the genetic superiority of the German Master Race. This Nazi
takeover of science and the media eventually led to the murder of millions
in the Holocaust. Could the genetic science surrounding the origin of AIDS
obscure a genocidal and world depopulation program of man-made origin? It is
time for the man-made theory of HIV to be examined fairly.

Proponents of this theory should not be dismissed as paranoid conspiracy
theorists; and AIDS educators should educate themselves about this hidden
history of AIDS and its implications for the origin of HIV.

How many more species jumping viruses will we have to endure before we
question the integrity and the agenda of scientists who still blissfully
jump viruses between species in animal laboratories?

Lawrence K. Altman, the Times reporter who in 1999 wrote that the origin of
the AIDS virus was solved, recently asked "Where did AIDS come from?" Now
seemingly undecided, Altman answers, "We can only guess. Determining the
answer would be important because discovering how AIDS came to be an
epidemic might prevent a similar catastrophe in the future." ("The AIDS
questions that linger," January 30, 2001).

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how researchers could have
created HIV and how they could have transferred the virus to gay and blacks
in a covert medical experimentation for genocidal or population control
purposes.

The secrecy and scientific disinformation surrounding the Human Radiation
Experiments of the Cold War era has taught us how easily government
scientists can fool the public on scientific matters. And when it comes to
scientific monkey business, researchers know that most people are chumps.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Dr. Alan Cantwell is a retired dermatologist and AIDS and cancer researcher,
who has written extensively on the man-made origin of AIDS. E-mail address:
***@aol.com Dr, Cantwell's books are available toll-free in the USA
from Book Clearing House @ 1-800-431-1579, and on the internet at Amazon.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

REFERENCES:

Cantwell AR Jr: Bacteriologic investigation and histologic observations of
variably acid-fact bacteria in three cases of Kaposi's sarcoma. Growth 45:
79-89, 1981.
Cantwell AR Jr: Necroscopic findings of pleomorphic, variably acid-fast
bacteria in a fatal case of Kaposi's sarcoma. Journal of Dermatologic
Surgery and Oncology 7: 923-930, 1981.
Cantwell AR Jr: Variably acid-fast bacteria in vivo in a case of reactive
lymph node hyperplasia occurring in a young male homosexual. Growth 46:
331-336, 1982.
Cantwell AR Jr: Kaposi's sarcoma and variably acid-fast bacteria in vivo in
two homosexual men. Cutis 32: 58-74, 1983.
Cantwell AR Jr: Necroscopic findings of variably acid-fast bacteria in a
fatal case of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and Kaposi's sarcoma.
Growth 47: 129-134, 1983.
Cantwell Jr, A: AIDS:The Mystery & the Solution. Los Angeles: Aries Rising
Press, 1984.
Cantwell Jr, A: AIDS & The Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of
the AIDS Epidemic. Los Angeles: Aries Rising Press, 1988.
Cantwell Jr, A: The Cancer Microbe. Los Angeles: Aries Rising Press, 1990.
Cantwell Jr, A: Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot. Los Angeles:
Aries Rising Press, 1993.
Cantwell AR Jr: "Gay cancer, emerging viruses, and AIDS." New Dawn
(Melbourne), Sept 1998.
Faden RR (Chair): The Human Radiation Experiments: Final Report of the
President's Advisory Committee. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Gallo R: Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer and the Human Retrovirus. New York:
Basic Books, 1991.
Hooper E: The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown and Company, 1999
Horowitz LG: Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola. Rockport, MA: Tetrahedron
Publishing Group, 1996.
Lee RE: AIDS: An Explosion of the Biological Time-Bomb? Biographical
Publishing Company, Prospect, CT, 2000.
Montagnier L: Virus. New York: WW Norton Co, Inc, 2000. Special Virus Cancer
Program (Progress Report #8). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health,
August 1971.

Source Paranoia magazine

[Home] [Dr Cantwell] [Mycoplasma]
No One
2004-09-11 05:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by seth72
Blaming Gays, Blacks, and Chimps for AIDS
Are species-jumping animal virus experiments responsible for the HIV
Holocaust?
by Alan Cantwell, M.D.
...
These books also debunk the preposterous "Patient Zero" story of 1987, which
claimed a promiscuous gay Canadian airline steward brought AIDS to America.
The highly implausible story was sensationalized in the media and served to
further obscure the origin of AIDS in America and blame gay promiscuity.
Even Montagnier is doubtful that the U.S. epidemic could have developed from
a single patient.
<very long post snipped>

How about this "theory". Some gay guys worked in the NYC zoo, were
bitten by chimps imported from Africa, were infected like the Africans
were supposed to be, and it took off from there. It's even more
plausible that the flight attendent theory (which isn't saying much.)

Come on guys - nobody knows who the first people were who brought it
into the U.S. and it doesn't really matter as they had absolutely no
way of knowing.
Saint Zombie
2004-09-11 06:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by seth72
Blaming Gays, Blacks, and Chimps for AIDS
Are species-jumping animal virus experiments responsible for the HIV
Holocaust?
by Alan Cantwell, M.D.
...
These books also debunk the preposterous "Patient Zero" story of 1987, which
claimed a promiscuous gay Canadian airline steward brought AIDS to America.
The highly implausible story was sensationalized in the media and served to
further obscure the origin of AIDS in America and blame gay promiscuity.
Even Montagnier is doubtful that the U.S. epidemic could have developed from
a single patient.
<very long post snipped>
How about this "theory". Some gay guys worked in the NYC zoo, were
bitten by chimps imported from Africa, were infected like the Africans
were supposed to be, and it took off from there. It's even more
plausible that the flight attendent theory (which isn't saying much.)
Come on guys - nobody knows who the first people were who brought it
into the U.S. and it doesn't really matter as they had absolutely no
way of knowing.
The "modern day" Christians seek answers. Yet they seem to forget the
past of the many plagues that wiped out 1/3 of Europe, and about the
incompatibilities of their genomic in the supposed "New World".
Dionisio
2004-09-13 03:09:20 UTC
Permalink
seth72 wrote:

A lot of blather that fails to address the fact that AIDS has been found
in human blood samples dating form 1959. The nearest he comes is over a
decade after that date. Whoopee.

HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS, has been documented as being present
in humans since at least 1959. Proof of this was found by Dr. Toufo Zhu
of the University of Washington, who analyzed 1,213 blood samples taken
in Africa between 1959 and 1982. A positive match for virus was found in
the blood of a Bantu man from the city of Leopoldville, in the Belgian
Congo, dating from 1959. Since the blood samples dated from 1959 and
upward, it is likely that HIV was around even before that time. (News
coverage of this may be found in the New York Times, February 3, 1998;
Seattle Times, February 4, 1998; Nature, February 5, 1998; and in
Science News, February 7, 1998.)
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
MC Bob
2004-09-13 03:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
A lot of blather that fails to address the fact that AIDS has been found
in human blood samples dating form 1959. The nearest he comes is over a
decade after that date. Whoopee.
HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS, has been documented as being present
in humans since at least 1959. Proof of this was found by Dr. Toufo Zhu
of the University of Washington, who analyzed 1,213 blood samples taken
in Africa between 1959 and 1982. A positive match for virus was found in
the blood of a Bantu man from the city of Leopoldville, in the Belgian
Congo, dating from 1959. Since the blood samples dated from 1959 and
upward, it is likely that HIV was around even before that time. (News
coverage of this may be found in the New York Times, February 3, 1998;
Seattle Times, February 4, 1998; Nature, February 5, 1998; and in
Science News, February 7, 1998.)
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread the
way it is today.

However, special viruses were developed even earlier than 1959. In the 30s,
they gave the Visna (engineered) virus to two sheep and released them in
Iceland to study transmission rates on the island.

There is a ton of evidence supporting man-made AIDS, and little to none iun
support of your claim.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
Dionisio
2004-09-13 10:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread the
way it is today.
Ah, and naturally that means it *must* have been engineered. Hmm...
Let's see, what else spread like AIDS? Syphilis. Oh, perhaps that was
engineered too. Chlamidia. Perhaps that was engineered too. Gonorrhea.
Perhaps that was engineered too. Herpes. Perhaps that was engineered
too. We could go on and on...
Post by MC Bob
However, special viruses were developed even earlier than 1959. In the 30s,
they gave the Visna (engineered) virus to two sheep and released them in
Iceland to study transmission rates on the island.
<chuckle> Engineered you say? 1930 you say? Let's take a small look at
facts:

Our current understanding of genetics was born from the 1944 work of
Canadian bacteriologist Oswald T. Avery and the American scientists
Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty, who discovered that the genes of
bacteria were made from a chemical compound called deoxyribonucleic
acid, or DNA. This was later found to be true of the genes of most other
organisms.

It was not until Francis Crick, in collaboration with James D. Watson
and Maurice Wilkins, managed to determine the molecular structure of DNA
in 1953 that humanity even knew what DNA looked like. (This won them the
1962 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine.)

1961 saw the biochemist M. W. Nirenberg and others figuring out the
relationship between DNA's composition and the production of proteins
created by genes. This relationship is what we call the "genetic code."
Later, it became apparent that another nucleic acid called ribonucleic
acid, or RNA, also functioned to carry out protein synthesis.

The ability to actually manipulate the genetic code to a purposeful end
was not acquired until the 1970s. And then it was quite limited,
consisting mostly of splicing different sections of DNA together or
"cutting and pasting" interesting sections of one chromosome into
another. It also involved a fair measure of old-fashioned finger crossing.

HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS, has been documented as being present
in humans since at least 1959. Proof of this was found by Dr. Toufo Zhu
of the University of Washington, who analyzed 1,213 blood samples taken
in Africa between 1959 and 1982. A positive match for virus was found in
the blood of a Bantu man from the city of Leopoldville, in the Belgian
Congo, dating from 1959. Since the blood samples dated from 1959 and
upward, it is likely that HIV was around even before that time. (News
coverage of this may be found in the New York Times, February 3, 1998;
Seattle Times, February 4, 1998; Nature, February 5, 1998; and in
Science News, February 7, 1998.)

Further investigation of HIV was conducted by scientists at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the results presented in February of 2000 at
the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections showed
some more interesting results.

By measuring the rate at which the virus has mutated since the epidemic
began, Bette Korber and her colleagues calculate that HIV fist came into
existence sometime around 1930. To confirm that their computational
models were correct, Korber et al. tested them by feeding in the genetic
sequences of the 1959 sample, and a strain that first appeared in
Thailand in 1987. Both were placed correctly.

This was confirmed yet again by another study in June of 2000, which
again placed the origin of AIDS in Africa in the early 1930s. This one
appeared in the June issue of the journal Science. Speaking of the
study, Tanmoy Bhattachary, with the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico, noted that, "It could have been in humans before that."

These results cast serious doubt on the theory that the virus was spread
by experimental polio vaccines which were made from chimp tissue and
tested in parts of Africa.

In short, it was quite impossible for HIV/AIDS to have been created by
anybody.
Post by MC Bob
There is a ton of evidence supporting man-made AIDS, and little to none iun
support of your claim.
There is also a ton of "evidence" showing that the world is under the
control of Nazi officers, preserved through the advanced technology of
aliens, whom operate from a top-secret base in Antarctica...

Why don't you present some of your "evidence." Something that shows man
had the ability to deliberately design and create complex genetic
structures before the discovery of DNA was made -- not to mention
"designer" manipulation of same -- would be interesting.
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
MC Bob
2004-09-13 16:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
There is also a ton of "evidence" showing that the world is under the
control of Nazi officers, preserved through the advanced technology of
aliens, whom operate from a top-secret base in Antarctica...
Funny, I've never seen any.
Post by Dionisio
Why don't you present some of your "evidence." Something that shows man
had the ability to deliberately design and create complex genetic
structures before the discovery of DNA was made
That's your strawman, not mine. Are you saying there is no visna virus? No
bovine lukemia virus?
Post by Dionisio
-- not to mention
"designer" manipulation of same -- would be interesting.
Say, did you show any evidence that AIDS existed in the 50s?



DOD hearing, 1969.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970



United States Senate Library



HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON

APPROPRIATIONS



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES



Ninety-First Congress



First Session



Subcommittee on Department of Defense



George H. Mahon, Texas, Chairman

Robert L.F. Sikes, Florida, Glenard P. Lipscomb, California

Jamie D. Whitten, Mississippi William E. Minshall, Ohio

George W. Andrews, Alabama, John J. Rhodes, Arizona

Daniel J. Flood, Pennsylvania Glenn R. Davis, Wisconsin

John M. Slack, West Virginia, Joseph P. Addabbo, New York

Frank E. Evans, Colorado



Temporarily assigned H.B. 15090



PART 5



RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION



Department of the Army



Statement of Director, Advanced Research Project Agency

Statement of Director, Defense Research and Engineering

__________











Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1969

UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY



129



TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969



SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS



There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to
mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular
biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists
believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to
produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally
exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.



MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?



DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.



MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?



DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.



MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be
required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the
cost involved?



DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:



The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us
to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological
warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the
following observations:



1. All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of
naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout
the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research,
either for offensive or defensive purposes.



2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a
new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects
from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that
it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon
when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.



3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed
in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.



4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular
biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly competent
scientists in the field., almost all are in university laboratories, and
they are generally adequately supported from sources other than DOD.
However, it was considered possible to initiate an adequate program through
the National Academy of sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC, and
tentative plans were made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds
in CB, growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve
the NAS NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to postpone it for
the past 2 years.



It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such
research should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of
massive killing of large populations. On the other hand, without the sure
scientific knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding
of the ways it could be done. there is little that can be done to devise
defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it there is little doubt that
this is an important area of potential military technological inferiority
in which there is no adequate research program."
Post by Dionisio
The History of the Development of AIDS
Chapter Excerpt from "State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory
Birth of AIDS"
by Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
The true history of the origin of AIDS can be traced throughout the
20th Century and back to 1878. On April 29 of
that year the United States passed a "FEDERAL QUARANTINE ACT".
The United States began a significant effort to investigate "causes"
of epidemic diseases. In 1887, the effort was
enhanced with the mandate of the U.S. "LABORATORY OF HYGIENE". This
lab was run by Dr. Joseph J.
Kinyoun, a deep rooted-racist, who served the eugenics movement with
dedication.
Two years later, 1889, we were able to identify "mycoplasmas", a
transmissible agent, that is now found at the
heart of human diseases, including (AIDS) HIV.
In 1893, we strengthened the Federal Quarantine Act and suddenly there
was an explosion of polio.
In 1898, we knew we could use mycoplasma to cause epidemics, because
we were able to do so in cattle, and
we saw it in tobacco plants.
In 1899, the U.S. Congress began investigating "leprosy in the United
States".
In 1902, We organized a "Station for Experimental Evolution" and we
were able to identify diseases of an ethnic
nature.
In 1904, we used mycoplasma to cause an epidemic in horses.
In 1910, we used mycoplasma to cause an epidemic in fowl/birds.
In 1917, we formed the "Federation of the American Society for
Experimental Biology" (FASEB).
In 1918, the influenza virus killed millions of unsuspecting. It was a
flu virus modified with a bird mycoplasma for
which human primates had no "acquired immunity".
In 1921, lead eugenics philosopher, Betrand Russell, publicly
supported the "necessity for "organized" plagues"
against the Black population.
In 1931, we secretly tested African Americans and we tested AIDS in
sheep.
In 1935, we learned we could crystallize the tobacco mycoplasma, and
it would remain infectious.
In 1943, we officially began our bio-warfare program. Shortly
thereafter, we were finding our way to New Guinea
to study mycoplasma in humans.
In 1945, we witnessed the greatest influx of foreign scientists in
history into the U.S. biological program.
Operation Paperclip will live in infamy as one of the darkest programs
of a twisted parallel government fixated on
genocide.
In 1946, the United States Navy hired Dr. Earl Traub, a notorious
racist biologist.
A May appropriations hearing confirms the existence of a "secret"
biological weapon.
In 1948, we know that the United States confirmed the endorsement of
"devising a scheme" in which to address
the issue of overpopulation in certain racial groups. State
Department's George McKennan's memo will forever
illuminate the eugenics mendacity necessary for genocide of millions
of innocent people.
In 1949, Dr. Bjorn Sigurdsson isolates the VISNA virus. Visna is man
made and shares some "unique DNA" with
HIV. See, Proceedings of the United States, NAS, Vol. 92, pp. 3283 -
7, (April 11, 1995).
In 1951, we now know our government conducted its first virus attack
on African Americans. Crates in
Pennsylvania were tainted to see how many Negro crate handlers in
Virginia would acquire the placebo virus..
They were also experimentally infecting sheep and goats. According to
author Eva Snead, they also held their
first world conference on an AIDS-like virus.
In 1954, Dr. Bjorn Sigurdsson publishes his first paper on Visna virus
and establishes himself as the "Grandfather
of the AIDS virus." He will encounter competition from Dr. Carlton
Gajdusek.
In 1955, they were able to artificially assemble the tobacco mosaic
virus. Mycoplasmas will forever be at the heart
of the U.S. biological warfare program
In 1957, future U.S. president, Rep Gerald Ford and others gave the
U.S. Pentagon permission to aggressively
deploy offensive biological agents. There are no recorded cases of
AIDS prior to the 1957 creation of "Special
Operation-X." (The SOX) program served as the immediate prototype
program for the Special Virus program to
begin in 1962.
By 1960, Nikita Kruschev had been let in on the biological weapon. His
1960 statement will long reflect the
arrogance of the secret blend of communism and democracy. The two
countries would go to a November 1972
agreement to cull the Black Population.
In 1961, scientist Haldor Thomar publishes that viruses cause cancer.
In 1995, he and Carlton Gajdusek
informed the National Academy of Sciences that "the study of visna in
sheep would be the best test for candidate
anti-HIV drugs."
In 1962, under the cover of cancer research, the United States charts
a path to commit premeditated murder, the
"Special Virus" program begins on February 12th. Dr. Len Hayflick sets
up a U.S. mycoplasma laboratory at
Stanford University. Many believe the "Special Virus" program began in
November 1961 with a Phizer contract.
Beginning in 1963 and for every year thereafter, the "Special Virus"
program conducted annual progress reviews
at Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA. The annual meetings are
representative of the aggressive nature in
which the United States pursued the development of AIDS.
In 1964, the United States Congress gave full support for the
leukemia/lymphoma (AIDS) virus research.
In 1967, the National Academy of Sciences launched a full scale
assault on Africa. The CIA (Technical Services
Division) acknowledged its secret inoculator program.
In 1969, Fort Detrick told world scientists and the Pentagon asked for
more money, they knew they could make
AIDS. Nixon's July 18 secret memo to Congress on "Overpopulation"
serves as the start of the paper trail of the
AIDS Holocaust.
In 1970, President Nixon signed PL91-213 and John D. Rockefeller, III
became the "Population Czar." Nixon's
August 10 National Security Memo leaves no doubt as to the genocidal
nature of depopulation.
In 1971, Progress Report #8 is issued. The flowchart (pg. 61) will
forever resolve the true laboratory birth origin of
AIDS. Eventually the Special Virus program will issue 15 reports and
over 20,000 scientific papers. The flowchart
links every scientific paper, medical experiment and U.S. contract.
The flowchart would remain "missing" until
1999. World scientists were stunned. The flowchart will gain in
significance throughout the 21st Century. It is also
clear the experiments conducted under Phase IV-A of the flowchart are
our best route to better therapy and
treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. The first sixty pages of
progress report #8 of the Special Virus program
prove conclusively the specific goal of the program. By June 1977, the
Special Virus program had produced 15,
000 gallons of AIDS. The AIDS virus was attached as complement to
vaccines sent to Africa and Manhattan.
However, because of the thoroughness of authors, like Dr. Robert E.
Lee, we also learn the Stanford
Mycoplasma Laboratory issues one of the first papers with AIDS in the
title. "Viral Infections in Man Associated
with Acquired Immunological Deficiency States." The primary scientist,
Dr. Thomas Merigan, was a "consultant"
to the Special Virus program.
Progress Report # 8 at 104 - 106 proves Dr. Robert Gallo was secretly
working on the development of AIDS with
full support of the sector of the U.S. government that seeks to kill
its citizens. Dr. Gallo can not explain why he
excluded his role as a "project officer" for the Special Virus program
from his biographical book. Dr. Gallo's early
work and discoveries will finally be viewed in relation to the
flowchart. We now know where every experiment fits
into the flowchart. The "research logic" is irrefutable evidence of a
federal "Manhattan-style project" to develop a
"contagious" cancer that "selectively" kills. Dr. Gallo's 1971 paper
is identical to his 1984 AIDS announcement.
Progress Report #8 at 273 - 286 proves we gave AIDS to monkeys. Since
1962, the United States and Dr. Robert
Gallo have been inoculating monkeys and re-releasing them back into
the wild. Thus, even government scientists
are baffled that both HIV-1 and HIV-II would "suddenly emerge" from
two distinct monkey ancestral relatives
during the last 100 years. A 1999 Japanese study will ultimately prove
the Man to Monkey origin of Monkey AIDS.
The monkey experiments summary definitively proves Monkey AIDS is also
man-made.
In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union entered into a
biological agreement that would signal the death
knell for the Black Population. The 1972 agreement for collaboration
and cooperation in the development of
offensive biological agents is still U. S. policy.
In 1973, we find that world scientist, Garth Nicolson reports on his
project, "Role of the Cell Surface in Escape
From Immunological Surveillance." His report is accompanied by seven
published papers. Dr. Nicolson worked in
conjunction with the Special Virus program from 1972 until 1978. Dr.
Nicolson is considered by some to be Dr.
Gallo's "West Coast" counterpart. It is strongly held that because of
Dr. Nicolson, Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Luc
Montagnier would secretly meet in Southern California to coordinate
what they would and would not say about the
special virus development program.
In 1974, Furher Henry Kissinger releases his NSSM-200 (U.S. Plan to
Address Overpopulation). It is the only
issue of discussion at the World Population Conference in Bucharest,
Romania. The men in the shadows had
won, the whole world agrees to secretly cull Africa's population.
Today it is Africa and other undesirables.
Tomorrow it may be you.
In 1975, President Gerald Ford signs National Security Defense
Memorandum #314. The United States
implements the Kissinger NSSM-200.
In 1976, the United States issues Progress Report #13 of the Special
Virus program. The report proves the
United States had various international agreements with the Russians,
Germans, British, French, Canadians and
Japanese. The plot to kill Black people has wide international
support. In March, the Special Virus began
production of the AIDS virus, by June 1977, the program will have
produced 15,000 gallons of AIDS. President
Jimmy Carter allows for the continuation of the secret plan to cull
the Black Population.
In 1977, Dr. Robert Gallo and the top Soviet Scientists meet to
discuss the proliferation of the 15,000 gallons of
AIDS. They attach AIDS as complement to the Small pox vaccine for
Africa, and the "experimental" hepatitis B
vaccine for Manhattan. According to authors June Goodfield and Alan
Cantwell, it is Batch #751 that was
administered in New York to thousands of innocent people. This
government will never be able to repay the
people for the social rape, humiliation and out right prejudice people
with HIV/AIDS face on a daily basis. The men
in the shadows of the AIDS curtain accurately calculated that you
would not care if only Blacks and gays are
dying. In fact you don't care that nearly a half million Gulf War
veterans are encumbered with something
contagious. Soon there will be no more Black people and a confused
military, older White people will start
suddenly dying and you still won't get it. Be here now for us, give us
a chance to be there for you.
Suddenly, just as President Nixon had predicted, there was explosive
death. On November 4, 1999, the U.S.
White House announced,.... "Within a period as short as five years,
all new infections of HIV in the United States
will be African American...." At some point our experts must be
allowed to begin the interface process of allowing
the history of this virus program to count. It is ludicrous and
preposterous to fail to review the U.S. virus program
in which to elucidate the etiology of AIDS.
More of the history of the secret virus program can be found in the
archives of Dr. John B. Moloney. A review of
the files under Dr. Moloney's name would further pinpoint additional
dates and records consistent with one of the
greatest hunts, capture and proliferation of disease in the history of
the human race. We have found the missing
link. It is the guts of the research logic of a federal program that
seeks to kill. We have found a curtain of AIDS.
We can identify some of the people who work in the shadows of the
curtain. Dr. Robert Gallo and Dr. Garth
Nicolson must lead us in review. In light of the attack mechanisms
available in which to inhibit AIDS, it is time that
not another person be stricken with this relic, synthetic mycoplasma
chimera.
Help those of us who are still here to realize full and contributory
lives. We are all one people.
On September 28, 1998 I filed suit against the United States for the
"creation", "production" and "proliferation" of
AIDS. On November 7, 2000, the appeals court agreed with the lower
court and held AIDS bioengineering as
"frivolous." The world continues to wait for the court to rule on the
resubmitted issues. The court can not continue
to simply brush aside our experts and the government's flowchart.
As far as I know, this case is still in the system.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
RobertVB
2004-09-13 19:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Say, did you show any evidence that AIDS existed in the 50s?
DOD hearing, 1969.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970
United States Senate Library
HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
Yes yes this proposal. Of course it wasn't talking about 'retroviral'
diseases but rather existing pathogenic processes and there in lies the
problem:

Sure, a disease that attacks the body's means of defending against
disease would be a terrible biological agent. But acknowledging that
and saying it should be researched is worlds away from saying saying
HIV
is the result of that research. Again, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread is
therefore incorrect.

The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus, but
again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected exactly
the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy at all!
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
MC Bob
2004-09-13 22:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread is
therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus, but
again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected exactly
the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?

You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in Africa
in the 70s, right?

And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B vaccines,
and they all got AIDS as well?

This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
RobertVB
2004-09-14 02:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread is
therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the Army and
I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers to find the
photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of the Kaposi's, the
were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't pan out. Saved the
serum - this was a retrospective study of the serum.

But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
specimens from Uganda:


Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by sera
from African children in Uganda (1972)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus, but
again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected exactly
the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma presenting
in young adults. That means they had had the virus long enough to have
severely limited their immune systems, 3-10 years. Further 80% of the
children were HIV+ indicating a long history of maternal infection.

So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die from
some other agent with a compromised immune system no one realized that
many of the deaths were due to a second common agent and with the death
rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked the pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in Africa
in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B vaccines,
and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed that
several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As an
example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in SF, just
under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the control group
that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to it, the Amsterdam
cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower AIDS rate (7.5%) than
the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%) cohorts at the end of 1982.
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera at
Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies first
appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed until 1978.

And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had been
introduced to the systems.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
MC Bob
2004-09-14 04:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread is
therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the Army and
I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers to find the
photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of the Kaposi's, the
were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't pan out. Saved the
serum - this was a retrospective study of the serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by sera
from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to work on
this?
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus,
but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected
exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy at
all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma presenting
in young adults. That means they had had the virus long enough to have
severely limited their immune systems, 3-10 years. Further 80% of the
children were HIV+ indicating a long history of maternal infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die from
some other agent with a compromised immune system no one realized that
many of the deaths were due to a second common agent and with the death
rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked the pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in
Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?



On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most respected
newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, "Smallpox vaccine
triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine
program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa
. Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by
the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS
virus infection on the continent.



An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory
is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo, M,D., the co-
discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between the WHO program and
the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that
it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of
live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant
infection such as HIV." Despite the tremendous importance of this story,
the U.S. media was totally silent on the report, and Gallo never spoke of
it again.



In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass, M.D.,
bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS virus. In a
widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O. Murdered Africa " ,
he accused the organization of encouraging virologists and molecular
biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt to make an
immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans. From the
Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Volume 47, p.259, 1972), he
quoted a passage that stated: "An attempt should be made to see if viruses
can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility
should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be
impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell
responding to the virus." According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'" The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").


http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed that
several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As an
example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in SF, just
under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the control group
that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to it, the Amsterdam
cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower AIDS rate (7.5%) than
the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%) cohorts at the end of 1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera at
Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies first
appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had been
introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
RobertVB
2004-09-14 19:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread is
therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the Army and
I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers to find the
photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of the Kaposi's, the
were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't pan out. Saved the
serum - this was a retrospective study of the serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
for this particular study - no - many magazines per internet age are
not available on the web. I provided another.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by sera
from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to work on
this?
Of course - Army asks for funding to research the project in 69, high
prevalence of antigen detected in rural settings in 72. 3 years from
funding request isn't enough time to get the paperwork filed, let alone
discover or create the agent, evaluate it, and release it.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus,
but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected
exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy at
all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma presenting
in young adults. That means they had had the virus long enough to have
severely limited their immune systems, 3-10 years. Further 80% of the
children were HIV+ indicating a long history of maternal infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die from
some other agent with a compromised immune system no one realized that
many of the deaths were due to a second common agent and with the death
rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked the pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in
Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?
On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most respected
newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, "Smallpox vaccine
triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine
program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa
. Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by
the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS
virus infection on the continent.
Which is what I said Gallo said.
Post by MC Bob
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory
is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo, M,D., the co-
discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between the WHO program and
the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that
it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of
live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant
infection such as HIV." Despite the tremendous importance of this story,
the U.S. media was totally silent on the report, and Gallo never spoke of
it again.
And do you understand what the Gallo is saying? IHe's saying the
people already had the HIV virus and giving them the smallpox vaccine
'activated' it. It didn't 'give' them AIDS, the hypothesis was that
activating their immune system aggrevated their already existing HIV
infection. (which has subsequently been disproven since giving live
vaccines to HIV+ people does NOT promote an acceleration of its
progress)
Post by MC Bob
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass, M.D.,
bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS virus. In a
widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O. Murdered Africa " ,
he accused the organization of encouraging virologists and molecular
biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt to make an
immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans. From the
Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Volume 47, p.259, 1972), he
quoted a passage that stated: "An attempt should be made to see if viruses
can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility
should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be
impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell
responding to the virus."
Which means whatit says - we should research to see if viruses can do
something like this.
Post by MC Bob
According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'"
Which of course isn't what they said at all - they wanted to see if it
was possible because of concern there may be viral agents already doing
this without us being aware of it. Never did they say 'create one
that doesn't exist'.
Post by MC Bob
The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Read it long ago - its a mishmash of conflicting and misrepresented
data as illustrated above.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed that
several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As an
example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in SF, just
under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the control group
that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to it, the Amsterdam
cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower AIDS rate (7.5%) than
the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%) cohorts at the end of 1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Odd that you can say something totally made up and erroneous like "And
then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B vaccines,
and they all got AIDS as well?" and then have the gonads to ask for
cites.

This stuff is common knowledge and if you were really interested you
would have found these articles yourself on Pub Med and merely Google.
You see, I don't care really what you believe; experience has shown me
that conspiracy nuts will believe what you want no matter what the
facts say. I state the truth for the lookie loos, not you.

That being said here is one reference you could have found yourself if
you were really interested - I know I did yesterday in about 5 minutes
of looking.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=8484382

"they all got AIDS" hardly. As an additional assignment why not look
up an find out exactly how many people were in the vaccine cohorts.
(Hint: no where near 8000 men got the vaccine)
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera at
Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies first
appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had been
introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
It didn't take any time off - again do your research. Hi prevalence in
rural villages in Africa during the time. They were just self
contained within the rural villages which had little contagious
interaction with more urban venues. Cases were not recognized as a
new agent since you always die from 'something else' with HIV
infections.

You have to have promiscous sex or blood contamination to spread HIV -
it broiled along until those conditions were met just like so many
other diseases. Remember we now know that HIV has pretty low
infectivity and requires optimum conditions to really spread well.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
God in a Box
2004-09-14 19:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread
is therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the Army
and I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers to find
the photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of the
Kaposi's, the were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't pan
out. Saved the serum - this was a retrospective study of the serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
for this particular study - no - many magazines per internet age are
not available on the web. I provided another.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by sera
from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
op t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to
work on this?
Of course - Army asks for funding to research the project in 69, high
prevalence of antigen detected in rural settings in 72. 3 years from
funding request isn't enough time to get the paperwork filed, let alone
discover or create the agent, evaluate it, and release it.
You said 1976 in your other post.
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus,
but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected
exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy
at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma presenting
in young adults. That means they had had the virus long enough to
have severely limited their immune systems, 3-10 years. Further 80%
of the children were HIV+ indicating a long history of maternal
infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die from
some other agent with a compromised immune system no one realized
that many of the deaths were due to a second common agent and with
the death rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked the
pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in
Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?
On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most respected
newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, "Smallpox vaccine
triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the smallpox eradication
vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing
AIDS in Africa . Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa
were inoculated by the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for
awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus infection on the continent.
Which is what I said Gallo said.
Awakened a dormant AIDS virus?

; )
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine
theory is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo,
M,D., the co- discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between the
WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important
hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been
saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used
for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV." Despite the
tremendous importance of this story, the U.S. media was totally silent
on the report, and Gallo never spoke of it again.
And do you understand what the Gallo is saying? IHe's saying the
people already had the HIV virus and giving them the smallpox vaccine
'activated' it. It didn't 'give' them AIDS, the hypothesis was that
activating their immune system aggrevated their already existing HIV
infection. (which has subsequently been disproven since giving live
vaccines to HIV+ people does NOT promote an acceleration of its
progress)
How does a smallpox vaccine "activate" AIDS again?

And if the hypothesis has been disproven, what are you claiming?
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass, M.D.,
bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS virus. In a
widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O. Murdered Africa
" , he accused the organization of encouraging virologists and
molecular biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt
to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to
humans. From the Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Volume 47,
p.259, 1972), he quoted a passage that stated: "An attempt should be
made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune
function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune
response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus
damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."
Which means whatit says - we should research to see if viruses can do
something like this.
Research and Development.
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'"
Which of course isn't what they said at all - they wanted to see if it
was possible because of concern there may be viral agents already doing
this without us being aware of it. Never did they say 'create one
that doesn't exist'.
What does seeing if it's possible to develop a biowarfare agent have to do
with naturally occuring diseases?

Why would the Department of Defense be doing that?
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Read it long ago - its a mishmash of conflicting and misrepresented
data as illustrated above.
You have offered nothing better, thus far.
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed that
several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As an
example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in SF, just
under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the control group
that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to it, the Amsterdam
cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower AIDS rate (7.5%)
than the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%) cohorts at the end of
1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Odd that you can say something totally made up and erroneous like "And
then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B vaccines,
and they all got AIDS as well?" and then have the gonads to ask for
cites.
This stuff is common knowledge and if you were really interested you
would have found these articles yourself on Pub Med and merely Google.
You see, I don't care really what you believe; experience has shown me
that conspiracy nuts will believe what you want no matter what the
facts say. I state the truth for the lookie loos, not you.
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
The Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1977)

Conveniently forgotten by scientists and medical journalists was the
fact that surgeons had been transplanting chimpanzee parts into human
beings for decades. When Keith Reemtsma died in June 2000, at age 74, he
was hailed as a pioneer in cross-species organ transplants (now known as
xenotransplantation). By 1964 he had already placed six chimpanzee kidneys
into six patients. All his patients died, but eventually Reemtsma
succeeded in many successful human-to-human organ transplants.
Much more likely to have spread animal viruses to human beings is the
largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP). This research
program was responsible for the development, the seeding, and the
deployment of various animal viruses, which were capable of producing
cancer and immune system damage when transferred between animal species
and into human cells and tissue.
The SVCP began in 1964 as a government-funded program of the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. Originally designed to
study leukemia and lymphoma forms of cancer, the program was soon enlarged
to study all forms of cancer.
The SVCP marshalled many of the nation's finest virologists,
biochemists, immunologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists, at
the most prestigious institutions in a coordinated attempt to assess the
role of viruses in causing human cancer. Many of the top AIDS
scientists, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the co-discoverer of HIV), Myron
(Max) Essex (of "cat AIDS" fame), and Peter Duesberg (who claims HIV is
not the cause of AIDS), were connected with the Program.
The scope of the program was international and included scientists from
Japan, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, and even Uganda, Africa. A
main mission of the SVCP was to collect various human and animal cancers
from around the world and to grow large amounts of cancer-causing
viruses. In the process, many animal viruses were adapted to human cells.
These cultured viruses would then be shipped to researchers throughout
the world.
An annual report of the accomplishments of the SVCP was published by
the NCI. The 1971 SVCR report indicates a mouse leukemia virus had been
adapted to grow in human cells. A "hybrid virus" - a mixture of a mouse
sarcoma and a cat (feline) leukemia virus - was engineered and grown in cat
cells. Chicken and feline retroviruses produced cancer in monkeys. Mouse-
cat virus hybrids and feline leukemia virus were adapted to human cells in
tissue culture. Thus, "species jumping" was a common occurrence in these
experiments.



I thought you said there was no research into these things before the 1969
funding proposal?
Post by RobertVB
That being said here is one reference you could have found yourself if
you were really interested - I know I did yesterday in about 5 minutes
of looking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=8484382
"they all got AIDS" hardly. As an additional assignment why not look
up an find out exactly how many people were in the vaccine cohorts.
(Hint: no where near 8000 men got the vaccine)
Ok, not every single one of them got AIDS. I apologize for the hyperbole.
Didn't you claim a 10 year incubation period?

Are you saying these gay men got AIDS at age 11, in 1968?

The number 8000 came from memory, and is incorrect.

http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm

The gay hepatitis B vaccine experiment immediately preceded the decimation
of American homosexuals. In this experiment, a cohort of over a thousand
young gays was injected with the vaccine on multiple occasions at the New
York City Blood Center in Manhattan during the period from November 1978 to
October 1979. Similar gay experiments, in which an additional 1,402 gay men
were injected, were also conducted in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver,
St. Louis and Chicago, beginning in 1980 and ending in October 1981. [15]


The earliest cases of AIDS are stored blood samples from New York City in
January 1979 (two months after the beginning of the hepatitis-B vaccine
trials upon gay men from Manhattan.

1984 tests revealed that 6.6% of the 1979 blood-samples were found to be
HIV-positive. By 1985, 66% of the men in the hepatitis-B trial tested HIV-
positive.)

In 1990 researchers announced that tissue samples taken in 1959 from a
British sailor named David Carr tested HIV-positive and was widely touted
as proof that AIDS had existed for decades. However, upon further testing
by America's leading geneticist, Dr. David Ho, it was concluded "that the
material came not from one person but at least two individuals. Whether
that is an accident or something else we have no way of saying." (New York
Times, 4/4/95) The researchers responsible for David Carr's false-positive
HIV test acknowleged it resulted from contamination within their laboratory
in a letter published by the journal Lancet (January 1996). Andrew Bailey
and Gerald Corbitt wrote: "We must conclude that we find no evidence... to
suggest that the 1959 Manchester patient carried HIV."
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera at
Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies first
appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had been
introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
It didn't take any time off - again do your research. Hi prevalence in
rural villages in Africa during the time. They were just self
contained within the rural villages which had little contagious
interaction with more urban venues. Cases were not recognized as a
new agent since you always die from 'something else' with HIV
infections.
Now you're claiming a "high prevalence" of AIDS in the 50s?

http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
To prove that AIDS is not an old disease in Africa, a team of scientists
led by J.W. Carswell tested the blood of old, sexually-inactive people
living in geriatric homes in Kampala, Uganda's largest city and the
epicenter of AIDS in Africa. The elderly people's blood was tested against
716 healthy, sexually-active adults living in the same city. Fifteen
percent of the healthy people were positive for HIV antibodies, but none of
the elderly people tested positive. This 1986 study indicated HIV had not
been in Uganda for a long time, as AIDS experts were proclaiming. The team
concluded: "The results presented here do not support the previous
suggestions that the virus might have originated in Uganda; on the
contrary, if interpreted correctly, they indicate it arrived in the country
only recently." [18]
Post by RobertVB
You have to have promiscous sex or blood contamination to spread HIV -
it broiled along until those conditions were met just like so many
other diseases.
So there was no promiscuous sex back then?
Post by RobertVB
Remember we now know that HIV has pretty low
infectivity and requires optimum conditions to really spread well.
It waited 30 years, and then exploded around the globe?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
RobertVB
2004-09-15 00:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this thread
is therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the Army
and I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers to find
the photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of the
Kaposi's, the were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't pan
out. Saved the serum - this was a retrospective study of the serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
for this particular study - no - many magazines per internet age are
not available on the web. I provided another.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by sera
from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
op t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to
work on this?
Of course - Army asks for funding to research the project in 69, high
prevalence of antigen detected in rural settings in 72. 3 years from
funding request isn't enough time to get the paperwork filed, let alone
discover or create the agent, evaluate it, and release it.
You said 1976 in your other post.
Yep that study was done in 1976 - the one I just gave a link to found
it in samples from 1972.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV virus,
but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and infected
exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any conspiracy
at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma presenting
in young adults. That means they had had the virus long enough to
have severely limited their immune systems, 3-10 years. Further 80%
of the children were HIV+ indicating a long history of maternal
infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die from
some other agent with a compromised immune system no one realized
that many of the deaths were due to a second common agent and with
the death rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked the
pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS in
Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?
On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most respected
newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, "Smallpox vaccine
triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the smallpox eradication
vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing
AIDS in Africa . Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa
were inoculated by the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for
awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus infection on the continent.
Which is what I said Gallo said.
Awakened a dormant AIDS virus?
Yes that's what he said, read your own damn quote

" I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such
as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as
HIV."
Post by God in a Box
; )
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine
theory is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo,
M,D., the co- discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between the
WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important
hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been
saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used
for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV." Despite the
tremendous importance of this story, the U.S. media was totally silent
on the report, and Gallo never spoke of it again.
And do you understand what the Gallo is saying? IHe's saying the
people already had the HIV virus and giving them the smallpox vaccine
'activated' it. It didn't 'give' them AIDS, the hypothesis was that
activating their immune system aggrevated their already existing HIV
infection. (which has subsequently been disproven since giving live
vaccines to HIV+ people does NOT promote an acceleration of its
progress)
How does a smallpox vaccine "activate" AIDS again?
<sigh> You do know how HIV and live vaccines work, right?

HIV infects CD4+ T cells (the helper cells). It inserts its genetic
code at random - if the T cell is not 'active' there is a good chance
the code lies dormant in the cells genetic material.

Live vaccines work by trying to create a population of CD4+ T cells
directed at the vaccination agent - it will cause dormant CD4+ T cells
to 'activate' and replicate to provide immunity to the vaccine.

If these dormant cells have HIV genetic material, it may be 'activated'
too and start replicating virons and infecting more CD4+ T cells
exponentially.

Or at least that was the theory. We now know that that the HIV rarely
is 'dormant' in CD4+ T cells and having been given a live vaccine does
little to change the production of HIV or the progression of the
disease process.
Post by God in a Box
And if the hypothesis has been disproven, what are you claiming?
That the one part of the article that had a smidge of truth to it has
been disproven.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass, M.D.,
bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS virus. In a
widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O. Murdered Africa
" , he accused the organization of encouraging virologists and
molecular biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt
to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to
humans. From the Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Volume 47,
p.259, 1972), he quoted a passage that stated: "An attempt should be
made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune
function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune
response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus
damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."
Which means whatit says - we should research to see if viruses can do
something like this.
Research and Development.
I must not have the special tinfoil hat glasses needed to see the word
'development' in the above piece.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'"
Which of course isn't what they said at all - they wanted to see if it
was possible because of concern there may be viral agents already doing
this without us being aware of it. Never did they say 'create one
that doesn't exist'.
What does seeing if it's possible to develop a biowarfare agent have to do
with naturally occuring diseases?
since virtually all of them are naturallly occuring disease, that
answeres silly. the army was researching bolivian hemorrhagic fever,
equines encephalitis, rocky moutain spotted fever, anthrax, etc.
Post by God in a Box
Why would the Department of Defense be doing that?
If you read their proposal you would know - they wanted to research it
so they could develop countermeasures.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Read it long ago - its a mishmash of conflicting and misrepresented
data as illustrated above.
You have offered nothing better, thus far.
Ahhh but the burden of proof isn't on me, is it? You are the ones
saying that somehow and for somewhy the military developed a deployable
virus from mere theoretical proposal to world wide distribution in 3-7
years. Its up to you to show the when's hows and whys. You haven't
shown it at all.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed that
several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As an
example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in SF, just
under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the control group
that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to it, the Amsterdam
cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower AIDS rate (7.5%)
than the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%) cohorts at the end of
1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Odd that you can say something totally made up and erroneous like "And
then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B vaccines,
and they all got AIDS as well?" and then have the gonads to ask for
cites.
This stuff is common knowledge and if you were really interested you
would have found these articles yourself on Pub Med and merely Google.
You see, I don't care really what you believe; experience has shown me
that conspiracy nuts will believe what you want no matter what the
facts say. I state the truth for the lookie loos, not you.
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
The Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1977)
Conveniently forgotten by scientists and medical journalists was the
fact that surgeons had been transplanting chimpanzee parts into human
beings for decades. When Keith Reemtsma died in June 2000, at age 74, he
was hailed as a pioneer in cross-species organ transplants (now known as
xenotransplantation). By 1964 he had already placed six chimpanzee kidneys
into six patients. All his patients died, but eventually Reemtsma
succeeded in many successful human-to-human organ transplants.
Much more likely to have spread animal viruses to human beings is the
largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP). This research
program was responsible for the development, the seeding, and the
deployment of various animal viruses, which were capable of producing
cancer and immune system damage when transferred between animal species
and into human cells and tissue.
The SVCP began in 1964 as a government-funded program of the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. Originally designed to
study leukemia and lymphoma forms of cancer, the program was soon enlarged
to study all forms of cancer.
The SVCP marshalled many of the nation's finest virologists,
biochemists, immunologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists, at
the most prestigious institutions in a coordinated attempt to assess the
role of viruses in causing human cancer. Many of the top AIDS
scientists, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the co-discoverer of HIV), Myron
(Max) Essex (of "cat AIDS" fame), and Peter Duesberg (who claims HIV is
not the cause of AIDS), were connected with the Program.
The scope of the program was international and included scientists from
Japan, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, and even Uganda, Africa. A
main mission of the SVCP was to collect various human and animal cancers
from around the world and to grow large amounts of cancer-causing
viruses. In the process, many animal viruses were adapted to human cells.
These cultured viruses would then be shipped to researchers throughout
the world.
An annual report of the accomplishments of the SVCP was published by
the NCI. The 1971 SVCR report indicates a mouse leukemia virus had been
adapted to grow in human cells. A "hybrid virus" - a mixture of a mouse
sarcoma and a cat (feline) leukemia virus - was engineered and grown in cat
cells. Chicken and feline retroviruses produced cancer in monkeys. Mouse-
cat virus hybrids and feline leukemia virus were adapted to human cells in
tissue culture. Thus, "species jumping" was a common occurrence in these
experiments.
And this means what? They were looking to identify 'oncoviruses' and
study their properties. there is no smoking gun here.
Post by God in a Box
I thought you said there was no research into these things before the 1969
funding proposal?
Post by RobertVB
That being said here is one reference you could have found yourself if
you were really interested - I know I did yesterday in about 5 minutes
of looking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dop
t=Abstract&list_uids=8484382
"they all got AIDS" hardly. As an additional assignment why not look
up an find out exactly how many people were in the vaccine cohorts.
(Hint: no where near 8000 men got the vaccine)
Ok, not every single one of them got AIDS. I apologize for the hyperbole.
Didn't you claim a 10 year incubation period?
a median 10 year incubation, yes. You know what median is right?
Post by God in a Box
Are you saying these gay men got AIDS at age 11, in 1968?
No obviously not. One of the reasons that they thought HIV was so
fulminate in the early years is they didn't realize they were just
seeing the leading edge of the cases, those that developed fastest and
more aggressive.
Post by God in a Box
The number 8000 came from memory, and is incorrect.
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
The gay hepatitis B vaccine experiment immediately preceded the decimation
of American homosexuals. In this experiment, a cohort of over a thousand
young gays was injected with the vaccine on multiple occasions at the New
York City Blood Center in Manhattan during the period from November 1978 to
October 1979. Similar gay experiments, in which an additional 1,402 gay men
were injected, were also conducted in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver,
St. Louis and Chicago, beginning in 1980 and ending in October 1981. [15]
The earliest cases of AIDS are stored blood samples from New York City in
January 1979 (two months after the beginning of the hepatitis-B vaccine
trials upon gay men from Manhattan.
See, some kid wrote this - AIDS in a stored blood sample? Its a
syndrome silly - at most you could have HIV or HIV antibodies in a
blood sample.

And that's not true - Irwin Blood Bank in SF has found HIV antibodies
in sorted blood bank samples from 1976.
Post by God in a Box
1984 tests revealed that 6.6% of the 1979 blood-samples were found to be
HIV-positive. By 1985, 66% of the men in the hepatitis-B trial tested HIV-
positive.)
Well in San Francisco only 49% had HIV in 1987, same percentage as the
control group that didn't get the vaccine.

Lemp GF, Payne SF, Rutherford GW, Hessol NA, et al: Projections of AIDS
morbidity and mortality in San Francisco, JAMA 1990 Mar
16;263(11):1497-501 PMID: 2407871; UI: 90172481
Post by God in a Box
In 1990 researchers announced that tissue samples taken in 1959 from a
British sailor named David Carr tested HIV-positive and was widely touted
as proof that AIDS had existed for decades. However, upon further testing
by America's leading geneticist, Dr. David Ho, it was concluded "that the
material came not from one person but at least two individuals. Whether
that is an accident or something else we have no way of saying." (New York
Times, 4/4/95) The researchers responsible for David Carr's false-positive
HIV test acknowleged it resulted from contamination within their laboratory
in a letter published by the journal Lancet (January 1996). Andrew Bailey
and Gerald Corbitt wrote: "We must conclude that we find no evidence... to
suggest that the 1959 Manchester patient carried HIV."
Actually they did not say it was a false positive and ignores the fact
that the lab only had a portion of the plasma specimen.

In any case an African 1959 plasma sample was found, as well as the
Norwegian family infected in 1971 or earier.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=9468138&dopt=Abstract
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera at
Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies first
appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had been
introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
It didn't take any time off - again do your research. Hi prevalence in
rural villages in Africa during the time. They were just self
contained within the rural villages which had little contagious
interaction with more urban venues. Cases were not recognized as a
new agent since you always die from 'something else' with HIV
infections.
Now you're claiming a "high prevalence" of AIDS in the 50s?
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
To prove that AIDS is not an old disease in Africa, a team of scientists
led by J.W. Carswell tested the blood of old, sexually-inactive people
living in geriatric homes in Kampala, Uganda's largest city and the
epicenter of AIDS in Africa. The elderly people's blood was tested against
716 healthy, sexually-active adults living in the same city. Fifteen
percent of the healthy people were positive for HIV antibodies, but none of
the elderly people tested positive. This 1986 study indicated HIV had not
been in Uganda for a long time, as AIDS experts were proclaiming. The team
concluded: "The results presented here do not support the previous
suggestions that the virus might have originated in Uganda; on the
contrary, if interpreted correctly, they indicate it arrived in the country
only recently." [18]
But of course it doesn't 'prove' any such thing. How many 'old' HIV
carriers that orginally lived in rural areas are there? It of course
doesn't 'prove' what it says it does at all.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
You have to have promiscous sex or blood contamination to spread HIV -
it broiled along until those conditions were met just like so many
other diseases.
So there was no promiscuous sex back then?
Of course there was but rural people had it with other rural people.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Remember we now know that HIV has pretty low
infectivity and requires optimum conditions to really spread well.
It waited 30 years, and then exploded around the globe?
Yep it moved from its isolated rural pockets and hit the 'global
village'. That's the way diseases spread and epidemics are occur.
Again, common sense and simple epidemiology - where do you think your
winter flu comes from? Some pig farm in China, that's where.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
God in a Box
2004-09-16 07:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this
thread is therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the
Army and I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers
to find the photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of
the Kaposi's, the were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't
pan out. Saved the serum - this was a retrospective study of the
serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
for this particular study - no - many magazines per internet age
are not available on the web. I provided another.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by
sera from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubme
d&d op t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to
work on this?
Of course - Army asks for funding to research the project in 69, high
prevalence of antigen detected in rural settings in 72. 3 years from
funding request isn't enough time to get the paperwork filed, let
alone discover or create the agent, evaluate it, and release it.
You said 1976 in your other post.
Yep that study was done in 1976 - the one I just gave a link to found
it in samples from 1972.
So you're saying these children in Uganda spontaniously developed AIDS
after the Army starting researching it?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV
virus, but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and
infected exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any
conspiracy at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma
presenting in young adults. That means they had had the virus
long enough to have severely limited their immune systems, 3-10
years. Further 80% of the children were HIV+ indicating a long
history of maternal infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die
from some other agent with a compromised immune system no one
realized that many of the deaths were due to a second common agent
and with the death rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked
the pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS
in Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?
On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most
respected newspapers, published an explosive article entitled,
"Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the
smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was
responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa . Almost 100 million
Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO. The
vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus
infection on the continent.
Which is what I said Gallo said.
Awakened a dormant AIDS virus?
Yes that's what he said, read your own damn quote
And then you say that has been discredited. If it didn't "awaken a dormant
virus" (no explanation given as to where this dormant virus came from),
then how did it happen, and why does WHO think they gave kids AIDS?
Post by RobertVB
" I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such
as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as
HIV."
Post by God in a Box
; )
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine
theory is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo,
M,D., the co- discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between
the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important
hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been
saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that
used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV."
Despite the tremendous importance of this story, the U.S. media was
totally silent on the report, and Gallo never spoke of it again.
And do you understand what the Gallo is saying? IHe's saying the
people already had the HIV virus and giving them the smallpox vaccine
'activated' it. It didn't 'give' them AIDS, the hypothesis was that
activating their immune system aggrevated their already existing HIV
infection. (which has subsequently been disproven since giving live
vaccines to HIV+ people does NOT promote an acceleration of its
progress)
How does a smallpox vaccine "activate" AIDS again?
<sigh> You do know how HIV and live vaccines work, right?
HIV infects CD4+ T cells (the helper cells). It inserts its genetic
code at random - if the T cell is not 'active' there is a good chance
the code lies dormant in the cells genetic material.
Live vaccines work by trying to create a population of CD4+ T cells
directed at the vaccination agent - it will cause dormant CD4+ T cells
to 'activate' and replicate to provide immunity to the vaccine.
If these dormant cells have HIV genetic material, it may be 'activated'
too and start replicating virons and infecting more CD4+ T cells
exponentially.
Or at least that was the theory. We now know that that the HIV rarely
is 'dormant' in CD4+ T cells and having been given a live vaccine does
little to change the production of HIV or the progression of the
disease process.
Why did it only occur in Africa, initially?

And you sure write a lot about something that you claim is a discredited
theory. Which is it?

Where did it come from, then?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
And if the hypothesis has been disproven, what are you claiming?
That the one part of the article that had a smidge of truth to it has
been disproven.
So you are fully without an explanation as to where AIDS came from?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass,
M.D., bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS
virus. In a widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O.
Murdered Africa " , he accused the organization of encouraging
virologists and molecular biologists to work with deadly animal
viruses in an attempt to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that
would be deadly to humans. From the Bulletin of the World Health
Organization (Volume 47, p.259, 1972), he quoted a passage that
stated: "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact
exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should
be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be
impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively,
the cell responding to the virus."
Which means whatit says - we should research to see if viruses can do
something like this.
Research and Development.
I must not have the special tinfoil hat glasses needed to see the word
'development' in the above piece.
Tinfoil hat glasses. Is that covered under extensions of Godwin's law?

How would you expect them to study something that didn't exist?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'"
Which of course isn't what they said at all - they wanted to see if
it was possible because of concern there may be viral agents already
doing this without us being aware of it. Never did they say 'create
one that doesn't exist'.
What does seeing if it's possible to develop a biowarfare agent have to
do with naturally occuring diseases?
since virtually all of them are naturallly occuring disease, that
answeres silly. the army was researching bolivian hemorrhagic fever,
equines encephalitis, rocky moutain spotted fever, anthrax, etc.
Sure. They poisoned kids with radiation, gave black men STDs, gave indians
blankets infected with smallpox.

Great guys.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Why would the Department of Defense be doing that?
If you read their proposal you would know - they wanted to research it
so they could develop countermeasures.
Yet they never developed countermeasures for AIDS, and it didn't exist
until after they began their reseach. Hell, they didn't encounter it for 10
years after that.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Read it long ago - its a mishmash of conflicting and misrepresented
data as illustrated above.
You have offered nothing better, thus far.
Ahhh but the burden of proof isn't on me, is it? You are the ones
saying that somehow and for somewhy the military developed a deployable
virus from mere theoretical proposal to world wide distribution in 3-7
years. Its up to you to show the when's hows and whys. You haven't
shown it at all.
Or so you claim.

Do you know where AIDS comes from?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed
that several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As
an example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in
SF, just under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the
control group that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to
it, the Amsterdam cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower
AIDS rate (7.5%) than the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%)
cohorts at the end of 1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Odd that you can say something totally made up and erroneous like
"And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?" and then have the gonads to
ask for cites.
This stuff is common knowledge and if you were really interested you
would have found these articles yourself on Pub Med and merely
Google. You see, I don't care really what you believe; experience
has shown me that conspiracy nuts will believe what you want no
matter what the facts say. I state the truth for the lookie loos,
not you.
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
The Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1977)
Conveniently forgotten by scientists and medical journalists was the
fact that surgeons had been transplanting chimpanzee parts into
human beings for decades. When Keith Reemtsma died in June 2000, at
age 74, he was hailed as a pioneer in cross-species organ transplants
(now known as xenotransplantation). By 1964 he had already placed six
chimpanzee kidneys into six patients. All his patients died, but
eventually Reemtsma succeeded in many successful human-to-human organ
transplants.
Much more likely to have spread animal viruses to human beings is the
largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP). This research
program was responsible for the development, the seeding, and the
deployment of various animal viruses, which were capable of producing
cancer and immune system damage when transferred between animal
species and into human cells and tissue.
The SVCP began in 1964 as a government-funded program of the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. Originally designed to
study leukemia and lymphoma forms of cancer, the program was soon
enlarged to study all forms of cancer.
The SVCP marshalled many of the nation's finest virologists,
biochemists, immunologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists,
at the most prestigious institutions in a coordinated attempt to
assess the role of viruses in causing human cancer. Many of the top
AIDS scientists, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the co-discoverer of
HIV), Myron (Max) Essex (of "cat AIDS" fame), and Peter Duesberg (who
claims HIV is not the cause of AIDS), were connected with the Program.
The scope of the program was international and included scientists from
Japan, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, and even Uganda, Africa.
A main mission of the SVCP was to collect various human and animal
cancers from around the world and to grow large amounts of
cancer-causing viruses. In the process, many animal viruses were
adapted to human cells. These cultured viruses would then be shipped
to researchers throughout the world.
An annual report of the accomplishments of the SVCP was published by
the NCI. The 1971 SVCR report indicates a mouse leukemia virus had
been adapted to grow in human cells. A "hybrid virus" - a mixture of a
mouse sarcoma and a cat (feline) leukemia virus - was engineered and
grown in cat cells. Chicken and feline retroviruses produced cancer in
monkeys. Mouse- cat virus hybrids and feline leukemia virus were
adapted to human cells in tissue culture. Thus, "species jumping" was a
common occurrence in these experiments.
And this means what? They were looking to identify 'oncoviruses' and
study their properties. there is no smoking gun here.
You said this stuff was not even being studied before 1969. They adapted
animal cancers to human cells, in the form of viruses.

They developed new cancers for humans. But that's not a smoking gun?

They're not studying how to protect people from it, they're making it in a
lab.

But you said they couldn't do that sort of thing. Clearly, they could, and
they did.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
I thought you said there was no research into these things before the
1969 funding proposal?
Hello?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
That being said here is one reference you could have found yourself
if you were really interested - I know I did yesterday in about 5
minutes of looking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
op t=Abstract&list_uids=8484382
"they all got AIDS" hardly. As an additional assignment why not
look up an find out exactly how many people were in the vaccine
cohorts. (Hint: no where near 8000 men got the vaccine)
Ok, not every single one of them got AIDS. I apologize for the
hyperbole. Didn't you claim a 10 year incubation period?
a median 10 year incubation, yes. You know what median is right?
You keep weakening your claim, don't you?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Are you saying these gay men got AIDS at age 11, in 1968?
No obviously not. One of the reasons that they thought HIV was so
fulminate in the early years is they didn't realize they were just
seeing the leading edge of the cases, those that developed fastest and
more aggressive.
So the ten year figure is essentially meaningless.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
The number 8000 came from memory, and is incorrect.
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
The gay hepatitis B vaccine experiment immediately preceded the
decimation of American homosexuals. In this experiment, a cohort of
over a thousand young gays was injected with the vaccine on multiple
occasions at the New York City Blood Center in Manhattan during the
period from November 1978 to October 1979. Similar gay experiments, in
which an additional 1,402 gay men were injected, were also conducted in
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis and Chicago, beginning in
1980 and ending in October 1981. [15]
The earliest cases of AIDS are stored blood samples from New York City
in January 1979 (two months after the beginning of the hepatitis-B
vaccine trials upon gay men from Manhattan.
See, some kid wrote this - AIDS in a stored blood sample? Its a
syndrome silly - at most you could have HIV or HIV antibodies in a
blood sample.
It doesn't say "AIDS in a stored blood sample", does it? And you're
quibbling over semantics, at any rate.
Post by RobertVB
And that's not true - Irwin Blood Bank in SF has found HIV antibodies
in sorted blood bank samples from 1976.
And that means what, exactly? How did it get from Africa to SF?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
1984 tests revealed that 6.6% of the 1979 blood-samples were found to
be HIV-positive. By 1985, 66% of the men in the hepatitis-B trial
tested HIV- positive.)
Well in San Francisco only 49% had HIV in 1987, same percentage as the
control group that didn't get the vaccine.
Lemp GF, Payne SF, Rutherford GW, Hessol NA, et al: Projections of AIDS
morbidity and mortality in San Francisco, JAMA 1990 Mar
16;263(11):1497-501 PMID: 2407871; UI: 90172481
So why did they develop AIDS, and where did it come from?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
In 1990 researchers announced that tissue samples taken in 1959 from a
British sailor named David Carr tested HIV-positive and was widely
touted as proof that AIDS had existed for decades. However, upon
further testing by America's leading geneticist, Dr. David Ho, it was
concluded "that the material came not from one person but at least two
individuals. Whether that is an accident or something else we have no
way of saying." (New York Times, 4/4/95) The researchers responsible
for David Carr's false-positive HIV test acknowleged it resulted from
contamination within their laboratory in a letter published by the
"We must conclude that we find no evidence... to suggest that the 1959
Manchester patient carried HIV."
Actually they did not say it was a false positive and ignores the fact
that the lab only had a portion of the plasma specimen.
In any case an African 1959 plasma sample was found, as well as the
Norwegian family infected in 1971 or earier.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=9468138&dopt=Abstract
Sorry, I don't trust the murderous government at all.

Now you're placing AIDS in Africa, Norway and SF, 10-20 years before the
epidemic.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera
at Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies
first appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed
until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had
been introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
It didn't take any time off - again do your research. Hi prevalence
in rural villages in Africa during the time. They were just self
contained within the rural villages which had little contagious
interaction with more urban venues. Cases were not recognized as a
new agent since you always die from 'something else' with HIV
infections.
Now you're claiming a "high prevalence" of AIDS in the 50s?
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
To prove that AIDS is not an old disease in Africa, a team of
scientists led by J.W. Carswell tested the blood of old,
sexually-inactive people living in geriatric homes in Kampala, Uganda's
largest city and the epicenter of AIDS in Africa. The elderly people's
blood was tested against 716 healthy, sexually-active adults living in
the same city. Fifteen percent of the healthy people were positive for
HIV antibodies, but none of the elderly people tested positive. This
1986 study indicated HIV had not been in Uganda for a long time, as
AIDS experts were proclaiming. The team concluded: "The results
presented here do not support the previous suggestions that the virus
might have originated in Uganda; on the contrary, if interpreted
correctly, they indicate it arrived in the country only recently." [18]
But of course it doesn't 'prove' any such thing. How many 'old' HIV
carriers that orginally lived in rural areas are there? It of course
doesn't 'prove' what it says it does at all.
Why do you keep harping on "rural"?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
You have to have promiscous sex or blood contamination to spread HIV
- it broiled along until those conditions were met just like so many
other diseases.
So there was no promiscuous sex back then?
Of course there was but rural people had it with other rural people.
Yet they didn't start dying off until the 80s? No one ever left a rural
area to go to the city?

All it really would take is one person. You're not making much sense, here.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Remember we now know that HIV has pretty low
infectivity and requires optimum conditions to really spread well.
It waited 30 years, and then exploded around the globe?
Yep it moved from its isolated rural pockets and hit the 'global
village'.
Rural Africa to Norway to SF?
Post by RobertVB
That's the way diseases spread and epidemics are occur.
Again, common sense and simple epidemiology - where do you think your
winter flu comes from? Some pig farm in China, that's where.
So where does AIDS come from?

; )
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
RobertVB
2004-09-16 23:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
gain, HIV existed long before, mid
70's 80%+ of ugandan villages were HIV+, the title of this
thread is therefore incorrect.
Do you have a cite for this?
Science magazine published in the 1985 or so (copied it in the
Army and I got out in 86) - will have to root through some papers
to find the photostat I have of it. Researchers went because of
the Kaposi's, the were suspecting cytomegalovirus but that didn't
pan out. Saved the serum - this was a retrospective study of the
serum.
So there's no cite on all of the web to support you?
for this particular study - no - many magazines per internet age
are not available on the web. I provided another.
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
But I did find this cite of HIV antibodies found in even earlier
Unique pattern of HTLV-III (AIDS-related) antigen recognition by
sera from African children in Uganda (1972)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubme
d&d op t=Abstract&list_uids=2990697
So the only reference you have is after the Army requested funds to
work on this?
Of course - Army asks for funding to research the project in 69, high
prevalence of antigen detected in rural settings in 72. 3 years from
funding request isn't enough time to get the paperwork filed, let
alone discover or create the agent, evaluate it, and release it.
You said 1976 in your other post.
Yep that study was done in 1976 - the one I just gave a link to found
it in samples from 1972.
So you're saying these children in Uganda spontaniously developed AIDS
after the Army starting researching it?
No, since that isn't what the article said, that obviously isn't what
I'm saying.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
The ONLY conspiracy plot that would even be possible is that
populations were deliberately infected with the natural HIV
virus, but again, there's no need for it. The virus spread and
infected exactly the populations you'd expect it to without any
conspiracy at all!
So it just sort of hung around from the 50s to the 70s, doing nothing?
absolutely not - the studies that were done in the ugandan rual
villages were there because of reports of Kaposi's sarcoma
presenting in young adults. That means they had had the virus
long enough to have severely limited their immune systems, 3-10
years. Further 80% of the children were HIV+ indicating a long
history of maternal infection.
So it was most definitely doing 'something' but since people die
from some other agent with a compromised immune system no one
realized that many of the deaths were due to a second common agent
and with the death rate so high in rural africa anyway it masked
the pathology.
Post by MC Bob
You do know that the WHO admitted they gave some 10,000 kids AIDS
in Africa in the 70s, right?
No they didn't. Dr. Douglas's theory is without backing. Now Dr.
Gallo was on record as saying it was an interesting hypothesis but
that's about it.
Actually, the WHO admitted it. Why can't you?
On May 11, 1987 , The London Times, one of the world's most
respected newspapers, published an explosive article entitled,
"Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the
smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was
responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa . Almost 100 million
Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO. The
vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus
infection on the continent.
Which is what I said Gallo said.
Awakened a dormant AIDS virus?
Yes that's what he said, read your own damn quote
And then you say that has been discredited. If it didn't "awaken a dormant
virus" (no explanation given as to where this dormant virus came from),
then how did it happen, and why does WHO think they gave kids AIDS?
They didn't. Read the even the biased clip you submitted: "the story
suggests" they didn't say they gave kids AIDS, they said they gave
them smallpox innoculations. If it were true that they sparked
dormant HIV to activate then it could be said that they 'gave' them
AIDS. But they didn't give them HIV, and we now know that smallpox
innoculations doesn't cause a non-progressive HIV infection to become a
progressive one.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
" I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such
as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as
HIV."
Post by God in a Box
; )
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine
theory is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo,
M,D., the co- discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between
the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important
hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been
saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that
used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV."
Despite the tremendous importance of this story, the U.S. media was
totally silent on the report, and Gallo never spoke of it again.
And do you understand what the Gallo is saying? IHe's saying the
people already had the HIV virus and giving them the smallpox vaccine
'activated' it. It didn't 'give' them AIDS, the hypothesis was that
activating their immune system aggrevated their already existing HIV
infection. (which has subsequently been disproven since giving live
vaccines to HIV+ people does NOT promote an acceleration of its
progress)
How does a smallpox vaccine "activate" AIDS again?
<sigh> You do know how HIV and live vaccines work, right?
HIV infects CD4+ T cells (the helper cells). It inserts its genetic
code at random - if the T cell is not 'active' there is a good chance
the code lies dormant in the cells genetic material.
Live vaccines work by trying to create a population of CD4+ T cells
directed at the vaccination agent - it will cause dormant CD4+ T cells
to 'activate' and replicate to provide immunity to the vaccine.
If these dormant cells have HIV genetic material, it may be 'activated'
too and start replicating virons and infecting more CD4+ T cells
exponentially.
Or at least that was the theory. We now know that that the HIV rarely
is 'dormant' in CD4+ T cells and having been given a live vaccine does
little to change the production of HIV or the progression of the
disease process.
Why did it only occur in Africa, initially?
"it"? HIV?
Post by God in a Box
And you sure write a lot about something that you claim is a discredited
theory. Which is it?
Just trying to explain things to you so you can understand what the
hypothesis was about.
Post by God in a Box
Where did it come from, then?
HIV? Again, how could you not know this? It was most likely first a
lower primate virus that migrated to human beings. Since Africa is the
continent with both the highest % of non-human primates AND ones that
exist in relatively isolated areas, if a animal origin retrovirus was
to rear its head you'd expect it to be there first.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
And if the hypothesis has been disproven, what are you claiming?
That the one part of the article that had a smidge of truth to it has
been disproven.
So you are fully without an explanation as to where AIDS came from?
Silly, that hypothesis doesn't describe where AIDS came from, it only
tried to explain the sudden explosion of known cases. It didn't even
try and explain the origins of HIV.

As far as HIV its no mystery - it came from a retrovirus of african
primate origin, migrated to humans and either mutated then or after
that in the1930's. Low rural incidence in settings where high mortality
rates are not considered unusual allowed it to continue on for several
generations. When the droughts of the early 70's drove the rural
inhabitants into the urban areas it infected the larger population
jumping to the 'global village' and of course showing up in the
populations who would be most likely to vector it most efficiently.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health
Federation in Monrovia , California , William Campbell Douglass,
M.D., bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS
virus. In a widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O.
Murdered Africa " , he accused the organization of encouraging
virologists and molecular biologists to work with deadly animal
viruses in an attempt to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that
would be deadly to humans. From the Bulletin of the World Health
Organization (Volume 47, p.259, 1972), he quoted a passage that
stated: "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact
exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should
be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be
impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively,
the cell responding to the virus."
Which means whatit says - we should research to see if viruses can do
something like this.
Research and Development.
I must not have the special tinfoil hat glasses needed to see the word
'development' in the above piece.
Tinfoil hat glasses. Is that covered under extensions of Godwin's law?
Nope.
Post by God in a Box
How would you expect them to study something that didn't exist?
Who said it didn't exist? Again read the statement "An attempt should
be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on
immune function." They were wondering if viruses were doing that
already, not saying that such a virus should be created.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO
is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively
destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'"
Which of course isn't what they said at all - they wanted to see if
it was possible because of concern there may be viral agents already
doing this without us being aware of it. Never did they say 'create
one that doesn't exist'.
What does seeing if it's possible to develop a biowarfare agent have to
do with naturally occuring diseases?
since virtually all of them are naturallly occuring disease, that
answeres silly. the army was researching bolivian hemorrhagic fever,
equines encephalitis, rocky moutain spotted fever, anthrax, etc.
Sure. They poisoned kids with radiation,
Yep though they didn't know it at the time.
Post by God in a Box
gave black men STDs,
nope.they didn't 'give black men STDs' they just didn't treat them when
they got them.
Post by God in a Box
gave indians
blankets infected with smallpox.
Actually I think you will find in most cases that was a tactic of
civilians.
Post by God in a Box
Great guys.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Why would the Department of Defense be doing that?
If you read their proposal you would know - they wanted to research it
so they could develop countermeasures.
Yet they never developed countermeasures for AIDS, and it didn't exist
until after they began their reseach.
Sure it did - they found it in that african specimen from 1959
Post by God in a Box
Hell, they didn't encounter it for 10
years after that.
right a very strong indication that they had nothing to do with it.
Shoot I was even given a jury-rigged vaccination against Bolivian
hemmorhagic fever when I worked there - no indication it worked, but
they always developed some sort of countermeasure to anything they
worked with.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
The
entire article can be read on google.com ("WHO Murdered Africa").
http://www.gamji.com/NEWS3673.htm
Read it long ago - its a mishmash of conflicting and misrepresented
data as illustrated above.
You have offered nothing better, thus far.
Ahhh but the burden of proof isn't on me, is it? You are the ones
saying that somehow and for somewhy the military developed a deployable
virus from mere theoretical proposal to world wide distribution in 3-7
years. Its up to you to show the when's hows and whys. You haven't
shown it at all.
Or so you claim.
Do you know where AIDS comes from?
AIDS is a syndrome - it doesn't come from anywhere, it is the result of
something. HIV however is pretty well nailed down. Zoonotic
origins, mutation from a more benign form in the 1930's, isolated in
rural environments till the early 70's, hit the world at that time.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?
and that's not true either. The Merck's HepB vaccine cohort was
composed of promiscuous gay men by design and intent recruited
primarily from city STD clincs. Retrospectives studies showed
that several of the men entered the program already were HIV+. As
an example out of the 359 men who received the trial vaccine in
SF, just under 50% were HIV+ in 1987, the same prevalence as the
control group that didn't get the vaccine. And to add sauce to
it, the Amsterdam cohort getting the same vaccine had a much lower
AIDS rate (7.5%) than the San Francisco (42.6%) and NYC (26.8%)
cohorts at the end of 1982.
Again, where are your cites?
Odd that you can say something totally made up and erroneous like
"And then some 8000 gay men in SF, NY, etc. were given free Hep B
vaccines, and they all got AIDS as well?" and then have the gonads to
ask for cites.
This stuff is common knowledge and if you were really interested you
would have found these articles yourself on Pub Med and merely
Google. You see, I don't care really what you believe; experience
has shown me that conspiracy nuts will believe what you want no
matter what the facts say. I state the truth for the lookie loos,
not you.
http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
The Special Virus Cancer Program (1962-1977)
Conveniently forgotten by scientists and medical journalists was the
fact that surgeons had been transplanting chimpanzee parts into
human beings for decades. When Keith Reemtsma died in June 2000, at
age 74, he was hailed as a pioneer in cross-species organ transplants
(now known as xenotransplantation). By 1964 he had already placed six
chimpanzee kidneys into six patients. All his patients died, but
eventually Reemtsma succeeded in many successful human-to-human organ
transplants.
Much more likely to have spread animal viruses to human beings is the
largely forgotten Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP). This research
program was responsible for the development, the seeding, and the
deployment of various animal viruses, which were capable of producing
cancer and immune system damage when transferred between animal
species and into human cells and tissue.
The SVCP began in 1964 as a government-funded program of the National
Cancer Institute (NCI) in Bethesda, Maryland. Originally designed to
study leukemia and lymphoma forms of cancer, the program was soon
enlarged to study all forms of cancer.
The SVCP marshalled many of the nation's finest virologists,
biochemists, immunologists, molecular biologists, and epidemiologists,
at the most prestigious institutions in a coordinated attempt to
assess the role of viruses in causing human cancer. Many of the top
AIDS scientists, including Dr. Robert Gallo (the co-discoverer of
HIV), Myron (Max) Essex (of "cat AIDS" fame), and Peter Duesberg (who
claims HIV is not the cause of AIDS), were connected with the Program.
The scope of the program was international and included scientists from
Japan, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, Israel, and even Uganda, Africa.
A main mission of the SVCP was to collect various human and animal
cancers from around the world and to grow large amounts of
cancer-causing viruses. In the process, many animal viruses were
adapted to human cells. These cultured viruses would then be shipped
to researchers throughout the world.
An annual report of the accomplishments of the SVCP was published by
the NCI. The 1971 SVCR report indicates a mouse leukemia virus had
been adapted to grow in human cells. A "hybrid virus" - a mixture of a
mouse sarcoma and a cat (feline) leukemia virus - was engineered and
grown in cat cells. Chicken and feline retroviruses produced cancer in
monkeys. Mouse- cat virus hybrids and feline leukemia virus were
adapted to human cells in tissue culture. Thus, "species jumping" was a
common occurrence in these experiments.
And this means what? They were looking to identify 'oncoviruses' and
study their properties. there is no smoking gun here.
You said this stuff was not even being studied before 1969. They adapted
animal cancers to human cells, in the form of viruses.
I said oncoviruses weren't being studied before 1969? Where did I say
that? Remember, the project was started to prove that many cancers
were not mutations but actually caused by as yet unidentified viral
agents.
Post by God in a Box
They developed new cancers for humans. But that's not a smoking gun?
No since all their creations would be easily recognizable as creations.
They transfered various viruses to other cell lines to see if the
pathology persists, and to give clues as to its mechanism.
Post by God in a Box
They're not studying how to protect people from it, they're making it in a
lab.
At the time there were no identified human oncoviruses - they were
looking to reproduce conditions that would help them identify symptoms
of existing oncovirus in humans.
Post by God in a Box
But you said they couldn't do that sort of thing. Clearly, they could, and
they did.
Could they make animal virus live in human cell lines? Sure. Could
they do it so it wouldn't be obvious that was what was done on a
retrospective analysis? No.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
I thought you said there was no research into these things before the
1969 funding proposal?
Hello?
Hi. No I didn't say that. And the oncovirus project was NOT a
dedicated to finding 'immune system' attacking virii, it was to find
oncoviruses, a very different thing.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
That being said here is one reference you could have found yourself
if you were really interested - I know I did yesterday in about 5
minutes of looking.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
op t=Abstract&list_uids=8484382
"they all got AIDS" hardly. As an additional assignment why not
look up an find out exactly how many people were in the vaccine
cohorts. (Hint: no where near 8000 men got the vaccine)
Ok, not every single one of them got AIDS. I apologize for the
hyperbole. Didn't you claim a 10 year incubation period?
a median 10 year incubation, yes. You know what median is right?
You keep weakening your claim, don't you?
No you just keep pretending you don't know what a median is which
weakens your authority.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Are you saying these gay men got AIDS at age 11, in 1968?
No obviously not. One of the reasons that they thought HIV was so
fulminate in the early years is they didn't realize they were just
seeing the leading edge of the cases, those that developed fastest and
more aggressive.
So the ten year figure is essentially meaningless.
Only to someone with a poor understanding of the subject.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
The number 8000 came from memory, and is incorrect.
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
The gay hepatitis B vaccine experiment immediately preceded the
decimation of American homosexuals. In this experiment, a cohort of
over a thousand young gays was injected with the vaccine on multiple
occasions at the New York City Blood Center in Manhattan during the
period from November 1978 to October 1979. Similar gay experiments, in
which an additional 1,402 gay men were injected, were also conducted in
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis and Chicago, beginning in
1980 and ending in October 1981. [15]
The earliest cases of AIDS are stored blood samples from New York City
in January 1979 (two months after the beginning of the hepatitis-B
vaccine trials upon gay men from Manhattan.
See, some kid wrote this - AIDS in a stored blood sample? Its a
syndrome silly - at most you could have HIV or HIV antibodies in a
blood sample.
It doesn't say "AIDS in a stored blood sample", does it? And you're
quibbling over semantics, at any rate.
Such inaccuracy is hardly 'quibbling'. It betrays a basic lack of
understanding about what is being written about. And if that garbled
sentence is trying to say that people had AIDS in January 1979 that
definitely shoots the vaccine trial in the foot - you can't develop
AIDS from HIV infection in 2 months.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
And that's not true - Irwin Blood Bank in SF has found HIV antibodies
in sorted blood bank samples from 1976.
And that means what, exactly? How did it get from Africa to SF?
A gay visitor from abroad?
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
1984 tests revealed that 6.6% of the 1979 blood-samples were found to
be HIV-positive. By 1985, 66% of the men in the hepatitis-B trial
tested HIV- positive.)
Well in San Francisco only 49% had HIV in 1987, same percentage as the
control group that didn't get the vaccine.
Lemp GF, Payne SF, Rutherford GW, Hessol NA, et al: Projections of AIDS
morbidity and mortality in San Francisco, JAMA 1990 Mar
16;263(11):1497-501 PMID: 2407871; UI: 90172481
So why did they develop AIDS, and where did it come from?
From a prolonged HIV infection just like most people. Remember, the
Merck hepatitis B cohort was recruited from the city STD clinic and
limited to promiscuous gay men. Considering that HIV is far more
infectious during the first weeks of infection it wouldn't take an
infected person long to infect many others in the bathhouse settings of
the day. Exponential growth of the vector pool, most being efficient
vectoring agents themselves - you'd saturate a highly crossvectored
group in very little time. Then you'd only have to wait for the HIV
infection to the progress, and you'd start having people develop AIDS
in a few years time.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
In 1990 researchers announced that tissue samples taken in 1959 from a
British sailor named David Carr tested HIV-positive and was widely
touted as proof that AIDS had existed for decades. However, upon
further testing by America's leading geneticist, Dr. David Ho, it was
concluded "that the material came not from one person but at least two
individuals. Whether that is an accident or something else we have no
way of saying." (New York Times, 4/4/95) The researchers responsible
for David Carr's false-positive HIV test acknowleged it resulted from
contamination within their laboratory in a letter published by the
"We must conclude that we find no evidence... to suggest that the 1959
Manchester patient carried HIV."
Actually they did not say it was a false positive and ignores the fact
that the lab only had a portion of the plasma specimen.
In any case an African 1959 plasma sample was found, as well as the
Norwegian family infected in 1971 or earier.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis
t_uids=9468138&dopt=Abstract
Sorry, I don't trust the murderous government at all.
Well the research wasn't done by the government, it is just listed by
them.
Post by God in a Box
Now you're placing AIDS in Africa, Norway and SF, 10-20 years before the
epidemic.
Not SF, their earliest was 76, 4 years before the first cases. But
yes, and that's probably how HIV broiled along - a few carriers (as we
know 20% of infected people are slow or non-progressors) lots of dead
in vectors (they catch it but don't give it to anyone) and you don't
notice such a thing exists.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
This is not a secret, or conspiracy stuff. It's documented history.
Yes it is - but it seems that your history doesn't jive with what
really happened. Retrospectives studies of stored blood bank sera
at Irwin Allen Blood Bank in San Francisto show HIV antibodies
first appeared in 1976 - the Hepatitis B cohort wasn't formed
until 1978.
And again, the epidemic needs absolutely no such 'jump start' - it
progressed exactly as you'd expect it do if a natural agent had
been introduced to the systems.
It just took from 1950 to 1970 off for tax reasons?
It didn't take any time off - again do your research. Hi prevalence
in rural villages in Africa during the time. They were just self
contained within the rural villages which had little contagious
interaction with more urban venues. Cases were not recognized as a
new agent since you always die from 'something else' with HIV
infections.
Now you're claiming a "high prevalence" of AIDS in the 50s?
http://www.konformist.com/1999/aids/cantwell1.htm
To prove that AIDS is not an old disease in Africa, a team of
scientists led by J.W. Carswell tested the blood of old,
sexually-inactive people living in geriatric homes in Kampala, Uganda's
largest city and the epicenter of AIDS in Africa. The elderly people's
blood was tested against 716 healthy, sexually-active adults living in
the same city. Fifteen percent of the healthy people were positive for
HIV antibodies, but none of the elderly people tested positive. This
1986 study indicated HIV had not been in Uganda for a long time, as
AIDS experts were proclaiming. The team concluded: "The results
presented here do not support the previous suggestions that the virus
might have originated in Uganda; on the contrary, if interpreted
correctly, they indicate it arrived in the country only recently." [18]
But of course it doesn't 'prove' any such thing. How many 'old' HIV
carriers that orginally lived in rural areas are there? It of course
doesn't 'prove' what it says it does at all.
Why do you keep harping on "rural"?
For the obvious reason that rural areas were isolated. They can have a
disease that never leaves the confines of their immediate area. You
wouldn't see it in the urban areas until such time as someone infected
from the rural areas hits a susceptable population. That's how these
things emerge - that's why they look for diseases like this in rural
environments - if they were already in the urban environment you
wouldn't have to look for them at all!
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
You have to have promiscous sex or blood contamination to spread HIV
- it broiled along until those conditions were met just like so many
other diseases.
So there was no promiscuous sex back then?
Of course there was but rural people had it with other rural people.
Yet they didn't start dying off until the 80s?
No people were dying before then, its just in rural africa death from
disease is not uncommon and since you always die from 'something else'
with AIDS, no one connected the dots.
Post by God in a Box
No one ever left a rural
area to go to the city?
Sure but unless the had sex with someone there AND infected them AND
that person gave it to others it wouldn't be dangerous.
Post by God in a Box
All it really would take is one person. You're not making much sense, here.
No you are just not understanding basic epidemiology.

The rural member does manage to infect someone with HIV - ok so what
now? If that person isn't promiscous that is a dead end vector. Like
that Norwegian family the father probably picked it up on his trips to
africa and infected his wife and his daughter. Yet because he infected
only those what were not themselves going to be a vector, this
particular cluster died out. Only when a vector infects other vectors
that are going to efficiently spread the virus will you see an
epidemic.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Remember we now know that HIV has pretty low
infectivity and requires optimum conditions to really spread well.
It waited 30 years, and then exploded around the globe?
Yep it moved from its isolated rural pockets and hit the 'global
village'.
Rural Africa to Norway to SF?
Yep. As you know the Norwegian sailor sailed to African ports -that's
where he got the virus probably from a prostitute. And the virus was
found in NYC too, and we know of atl east one very efficient gay vector
that was the source for many of the early cases. All it would take is
him or someone like him to SF and you have your initial infection.
Welcome to the Global village.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
That's the way diseases spread and epidemics are occur.
Again, common sense and simple epidemiology - where do you think your
winter flu comes from? Some pig farm in China, that's where.
So where does AIDS come from?
AIDS usually comes from an HIV infection, HIV comes from rural Africa.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?doc=2098.3cce
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
Sogum Dealer
2004-09-17 00:33:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
HIV? Again, how could you not know this? It was most likely first a
lower primate virus that migrated to human beings. Since Africa is the
continent with both the highest % of non-human primates AND ones that
exist in relatively isolated areas, if a animal origin retrovirus was
to rear its head you'd expect it to be there first.
Heh. You're full of shit.

You're referring to SIVs that were also lab cultivated.

Since you don't know where AIDS came from, you cannot say with certainty
where it didn't come from.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
Dionisio
2004-09-14 02:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
There is also a ton of "evidence" showing that the world is under the
control of Nazi officers, preserved through the advanced technology of
aliens, whom operate from a top-secret base in Antarctica...
Funny, I've never seen any.
Ah, and next you'll have us "believing" that you don't harken to
conspiracy theory.

Or that you didn't see that invisible "<sarcasm>" tag...
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Why don't you present some of your "evidence." Something that shows man
had the ability to deliberately design and create complex genetic
structures before the discovery of DNA was made
That's your strawman, not mine. Are you saying there is no visna virus? No
bovine lukemia virus?
<chuckle> This from Mr. "Man Made AIDS..." And how -- pray tell -- did
that happen?
Post by MC Bob
Say, did you show any evidence that AIDS existed in the 50s?
Yes.
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
The History of the Development of AIDS
Chapter Excerpt from "State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory
Birth of AIDS"
by Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
Yes, yes. More book promotions. Cha-ching, cha-ching. Got something
better than cash register sounds?

Say, something like facts?
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
MC Bob
2004-09-14 04:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
There is also a ton of "evidence" showing that the world is under the
control of Nazi officers, preserved through the advanced technology of
aliens, whom operate from a top-secret base in Antarctica...
Funny, I've never seen any.
Ah, and next you'll have us "believing" that you don't harken to
conspiracy theory.
Or that you didn't see that invisible "<sarcasm>" tag...
So there is no such thing as a conspiracy?
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Why don't you present some of your "evidence." Something that shows man
had the ability to deliberately design and create complex genetic
structures before the discovery of DNA was made
That's your strawman, not mine. Are you saying there is no visna virus? No
bovine lukemia virus?
<chuckle> This from Mr. "Man Made AIDS..." And how -- pray tell -- did
that happen?
Post by MC Bob
Say, did you show any evidence that AIDS existed in the 50s?
Yes.
Funny, I saw allegations with no citations at all.
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
The History of the Development of AIDS
Chapter Excerpt from "State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory
Birth of AIDS"
by Boyd E. Graves, J.D.
Yes, yes. More book promotions. Cha-ching, cha-ching. Got something
better than cash register sounds?
Say, something like facts?
The development of AIDS is well documented. What about the World Health
Organization? Did you snip that part?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
Dionisio
2004-09-15 04:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Ah, and next you'll have us "believing" that you don't harken to
conspiracy theory.
Or that you didn't see that invisible "<sarcasm>" tag...
So there is no such thing as a conspiracy?
In this case, no. It was beyond our capabilities. (Unless you posit that
the conspirers were aided through the advanced technological knowledge
of aliens...)
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Yes.
Funny, I saw allegations with no citations at all.
Ah, missed the following, eh? Well I'll repeat it:

[begin repeat]
Further investigation of HIV was conducted by scientists at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the results presented in February of 2000 at
the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections showed
some more interesting results.

By measuring the rate at which the virus has mutated since the epidemic
began, Bette Korber and her colleagues calculate that HIV fist came into
existence sometime around 1930. To confirm that their computational
models were correct, Korber et al. tested them by feeding in the genetic
sequences of the 1959 sample, and a strain that first appeared in
Thailand in 1987. Both were placed correctly.

This was confirmed yet again by another study in June of 2000, which
again placed the origin of AIDS in Africa in the early 1930s. This one
appeared in the June issue of the journal Science. Speaking of the
study, Tanmoy Bhattachary, with the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico, noted that, "It could have been in humans before that."

[end repeat]

Questions?
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Say, something like facts?
The development of AIDS is well documented. What about the World Health
Organization? Did you snip that part?
<LOL> Yes it is well documented. Curiously, you question the
documentation. Hmm... the documentation must be inconvenient. Oh dear,
can't have something interfering with those book sales, can we?
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
God in a Box
2004-09-15 16:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Ah, and next you'll have us "believing" that you don't harken to
conspiracy theory.
Or that you didn't see that invisible "<sarcasm>" tag...
So there is no such thing as a conspiracy?
In this case, no. It was beyond our capabilities. (Unless you posit that
the conspirers were aided through the advanced technological knowledge
of aliens...)
May 3, 2004
U.S. Finds Missing Special ‘AIDS’ Virus Progress Reports

USA - Officials within the National Cancer Institutes have recovered
several rare virus development documents created by the formerly secret
U.S. Special Virus Program. The recovered virus development documents date
back as early as 1965 and were uncovered as a result of an ongoing Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit for the full review and disclosure of the U.S.
Special Virus program, led by AIDS activist Dr. Boyd E. Graves.

“We now see U.S. Special Virus reports one through seven were not
completely destroyed,” Graves said. “They are going to work with us next
week and for that I am grateful.”

The U.S. Special Virus development program issued annual progress reports
to key administrators to track the program’s process of developing what the
progress reports call the government’s ‘special’ or ‘candidate virus.’

Formerly believed by Dr. Graves and other medical researchers to have been
destroyed as part of a government cover-up effort in the 1970’s, the newly
recovered U.S. Special Virus progress reports are expected to shed new
light into the consequences of the program and help researchers better
understand decades of “missing medical history.”

Several of the latter U.S. Special Virus reports exist in
limited fashion throughout the public library system and are available for
check out via interlibrary loan requests. Dr. Graves’ U.S. Special Virus
research collection has been scanned to offer the public reproductions of
these rare journals in print or CDROM.

Dr. Graves’ archives many papers related to his judicial
activism and the U.S. Special Virus Program research for public review
available online at http://www.boydgraves.com

FOR MORE INFO CONTACT:

Dr. Boyd Graves 216-382-9252

Zygote Media 866-246-2772
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Yes.
Funny, I saw allegations with no citations at all.
[begin repeat]
Further investigation of HIV was conducted by scientists at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the results presented in February of 2000 at
the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections showed
some more interesting results.
By measuring the rate at which the virus has mutated since the epidemic
began, Bette Korber and her colleagues calculate that HIV fist came into
existence sometime around 1930. To confirm that their computational
models were correct, Korber et al. tested them by feeding in the genetic
sequences of the 1959 sample, and a strain that first appeared in
Thailand in 1987. Both were placed correctly.
This was confirmed yet again by another study in June of 2000, which
again placed the origin of AIDS in Africa in the early 1930s. This one
appeared in the June issue of the journal Science. Speaking of the
study, Tanmoy Bhattachary, with the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
New Mexico, noted that, "It could have been in humans before that."
[end repeat]
Questions?
Yes. Why didn't it proliferate, and how do you react to other studies which
indicate it did not exist in Africa prior to the 70s?

Sorry, I missed two messages yesterday that I'll have to go back and reply
to.

If the army developed AIDS, do you think another part of the government
would admit it? Or try to prove otherwise?
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Post by Dionisio
Say, something like facts?
The development of AIDS is well documented. What about the World Health
Organization? Did you snip that part?
<LOL> Yes it is well documented. Curiously, you question the
documentation. Hmm... the documentation must be inconvenient. Oh dear,
can't have something interfering with those book sales, can we?
You think I'm selling a book?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
Dionisio
2004-09-16 01:20:02 UTC
Permalink
U.S. Finds Missing Special ‘AIDS’ Virus Progress Reports
Ah, and those reports document deliberate and exacting manipulation,
even creation, of viruses via direct and willful -- not to mention
skillful -- creation or modification of the genetic code? No, I don't
think so. It was introduction of random mutation and screening for
hopeful "candidates" or "sports."

Whoopee. "We had a happy accident."
Yes. Why didn't it proliferate, and how do you react to other studies which
indicate it did not exist in Africa prior to the 70s?
"Why didn't it proliferate"? Um, "hello!" It's proliferated quite well,
thank you.
You think I'm selling a book?
Don't know. Are you "MC Bob"?
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
God in a Box
2004-09-16 07:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
U.S. Finds Missing Special ‘AIDS’ Virus Progress Reports
Ah, and those reports document deliberate and exacting manipulation,
even creation, of viruses via direct and willful -- not to mention
skillful -- creation or modification of the genetic code? No, I don't
think so. It was introduction of random mutation and screening for
hopeful "candidates" or "sports."
Whoopee. "We had a happy accident."
Yes. Laboratory creation of cancer viruses by merging animal cancers with
humans cells is an accident.

A happy one...

Interesting choice of words, there.
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
Yes. Why didn't it proliferate, and how do you react to other studies
which indicate it did not exist in Africa prior to the 70s?
"Why didn't it proliferate"? Um, "hello!" It's proliferated quite well,
thank you.
In the 50s? The 60s?
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
You think I'm selling a book?
Don't know. Are you "MC Bob"?
Do you think "MC Bob" is selling a book?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
Saint Zombie
2004-09-17 02:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
U.S. Finds Missing Special ‘AIDS’ Virus Progress Reports
Ah, and those reports document deliberate and exacting manipulation,
even creation, of viruses via direct and willful -- not to mention
skillful -- creation or modification of the genetic code? No, I don't
think so. It was introduction of random mutation and screening for
hopeful "candidates" or "sports."
Whoopee. "We had a happy accident."
[some snipping done here]

All sickness is the manifestation of the result of SIN. There is no
need to discuss this matter any further. SIN is SIN, and sickness is
the result. Aids is the result of SIN. It is not a judgement of God.

Same with Gonorrhea etc, yet these are not male-to-male. Please stop
this madness. SIN is not a disease, rather it is the "result".

SIN is the result of your actions, and please stop blaiming the world
for your stupidity.
Sogum Dealer
2004-09-17 02:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saint Zombie
All sickness is the manifestation of the result of SIN.
Yeah. Fuck those blind children.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
Dionisio
2004-09-19 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saint Zombie
All sickness is the manifestation of the result of SIN.
<LOL> So scurvy isn't a result of lack of vitamin C, but rather the sin
of loving the sea more than the wife -- whom one should be porking every
hour, on the hour?

What's next? Blame the Pope for getting Alzheimer's? "Excuse me, who are
you?"

"God. And forgetting Me is a sin. Therefore I give you Alzheimer's..."
Post by Saint Zombie
SIN is the result of your actions, and please stop blaiming the world
for your stupidity.
Oh, so we can't inject "original sin" into the equation? Blasphemy!
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
Saint Zombie
2004-09-19 03:06:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:02:10 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Post by Saint Zombie
All sickness is the manifestation of the result of SIN.
<LOL> So scurvy isn't a result of lack of vitamin C, but rather the sin
of loving the sea more than the wife -- whom one should be porking every
hour, on the hour?
Exactly, and your modern medicine is like a bandage to cover you sin.
Post by Dionisio
What's next? Blame the Pope for getting Alzheimer's? "Excuse me, who are
you?"
"God. And forgetting Me is a sin. Therefore I give you Alzheimer's..."
Post by Saint Zombie
SIN is the result of your actions, and please stop blaiming the world
for your stupidity.
Oh, so we can't inject "original sin" into the equation? Blasphemy!
No
Dionisio
2004-09-20 04:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saint Zombie
Exactly, and your modern medicine is like a bandage to cover you sin.
Ah, so when we get sick, we should just die; because sickness is sin and
sin is death? Hmm... Wait, isn't medicine about the sanctity of life?
And isn't religion about the promotion of the sanctity of life? (Well,
the "good" life at least.) Ah, I see. You reference *my* modern
medicine. No doubt this is different from *your* medicine: So, Mr.
Zombie, did your "medicine" prevent your death? (Assuming you wouldn't
deliberately misrepresent yourself as dead via the term "zombie" that
is... Oh, wait. Zombies are the "living dead." So, "How's life?" Mr.
"Dead" Guy?)
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
Saint Zombie
2004-09-21 07:04:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 04:31:42 GMT, Dionisio
Post by Dionisio
Post by Saint Zombie
Exactly, and your modern medicine is like a bandage to cover you sin.
Ah, so when we get sick, we should just die; because sickness is sin and
sin is death? Hmm... Wait, isn't medicine about the sanctity of life?
And isn't religion about the promotion of the sanctity of life? (Well,
the "good" life at least.) Ah, I see. You reference *my* modern
medicine. No doubt this is different from *your* medicine: So, Mr.
Zombie, did your "medicine" prevent your death? (Assuming you wouldn't
deliberately misrepresent yourself as dead via the term "zombie" that
is... Oh, wait. Zombies are the "living dead." So, "How's life?" Mr.
"Dead" Guy?)
The modern medicine is there to replace your lack of faith in your
Creator.

I am not in any way shape or form, saying that modern medicine is
evil.

However, on the matter of life and death. What is true salvation?

Perhaps, salvation is Eternal Life? Hmmm... ;-)
Dionisio
2004-09-22 02:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Saint Zombie
The modern medicine is there to replace your lack of faith in your
Creator.
Ahem, dear fellow, this Creator you mention invented death... And all
because someone ate of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Before eating of it, they had know convention of good nor evil.
Afterwards, they did. Now let's see... Hmm... Doesn't religion
perpetuate "knowledge of good and evil"? Gee, no wonder folks keep
dying: They keep eating -- most vicariously -- of the fruit... My, what
a vicious little circle.

So, how does it feel to know that you -- and you personally -- are
helping kill the human race? Uplifting? Glorious? Or perverse?

Or is that why you call others "perverse;" To deflect attention from
your own perversity. Come now, answer. Enquiring minds want to know.
("And knowing is half the battle." <grin>)
Post by Saint Zombie
However, on the matter of life and death. What is true salvation?
Um, "hello," you're supposed to be the expert on that. If you don't know...
Post by Saint Zombie
Perhaps, salvation is Eternal Life? HMO... ;-)
Well, according to your religion, *everyone* gets eternal life. So, if
we all get it: Whoopee. And if some folks are masochists, they'll love
Hell. And if some are sadists who like being deprived of things they'd
really love to experience, they'll just adore Heaven.

So, which are you after: Heaven or Hell? (And you wonder why some people
decline the invitation to either...)
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
Dionisio
2004-09-19 01:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by God in a Box
Post by Dionisio
"Why didn't it proliferate"? Um, "hello!" It's proliferated quite well,
thank you.
In the 50s? The 60s?
And 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...
Post by God in a Box
Post by Dionisio
Don't know. Are you "MC Bob"?
Do you think "MC Bob" is selling a book?
It could be fairly said that he's promoting it. So, are you McBob?
(Circumcision jokes notwithstanding.)
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
LL Bean J
2004-09-21 18:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
Post by Dionisio
"Why didn't it proliferate"? Um, "hello!" It's proliferated quite well,
thank you.
In the 50s? The 60s?
And 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...
Sure it did. AIDS in the 50s and 60s, eh?

; )
Post by Dionisio
Post by God in a Box
Post by Dionisio
Don't know. Are you "MC Bob"?
Do you think "MC Bob" is selling a book?
It could be fairly said that he's promoting it. So, are you McBob?
(Circumcision jokes notwithstanding.)
I'd like to help you get your head out of your ass, but it appears to be
firmly lodged.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
"Guest"
2004-09-15 17:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread the
way it is today.
Ah, and naturally that means it *must* have been engineered. Hmm...
Let's see, what else spread like AIDS? Syphilis. Oh, perhaps that was
engineered too. Chlamidia. Perhaps that was engineered too. Gonorrhea.
Perhaps that was engineered too. Herpes. Perhaps that was engineered
too. We could go on and on...
Hey, I have always said that A.I.D.S. has a project name and not a Latin
name that they give to natural occurrences.
God in a Box
2004-09-15 17:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Guest"
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread
the
Post by Dionisio
Post by MC Bob
way it is today.
Ah, and naturally that means it *must* have been engineered. Hmm...
Let's see, what else spread like AIDS? Syphilis. Oh, perhaps that was
engineered too. Chlamidia. Perhaps that was engineered too. Gonorrhea.
Perhaps that was engineered too. Herpes. Perhaps that was engineered
too. We could go on and on...
Hey, I have always said that A.I.D.S. has a project name and not a Latin
name that they give to natural occurrences.
Not to mention, most STDs have been with us since the dawn of civilization.

Now we get new diseases every year.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
Dionisio
2004-09-16 01:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Guest"
Hey, I have always said that A.I.D.S. has a project name and not a Latin
name that they give to natural occurrences.
Wow. We live in modern times and decide to use live languages instead of
dead ones... Must mean a conspiracy's afoot.

No doubt this is also the case with Lou Gherig's Disease, Arthritis,
cancer, acid reflux, mad cow disease, and anthrax. I mean, none of those
are Latin... Engineered, one and all, right?
--
The danger for what the press derisively calls the 'Religious Right' is that they are making the same mistakes the religious left made. To solve the moral problems of the nation they are looking to government rather than the Creator of their faith and His strategies.
RobertVB
2004-09-13 19:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread the
way it is today.
but it did - retrospective blood studies of a couple ugandan village
research projects showed that high prevalence of HIV in both the adults
and children, as well as their being history of Kaposi's sarcoma in
young adults (the observation that sparked the studies). What isolated
HIV was it orginated in the rural populations and it staying there.
But in the 70's the prolonged drought and resulting famine drove many
traditionally rural inhabitants into the urban areas - and what does an
uneducated girl do to make money in the city? Once the virus entered
the 'global community' as an STD it spread just fine.
Post by MC Bob
However, special viruses were developed even earlier than 1959. In the 30s,
they gave the Visna (engineered) virus to two sheep and released them in
Iceland to study transmission rates on the island.
Visna is not an engineered virus, it is 100% natural and was first
identified in sheep.
Post by MC Bob
There is a ton of evidence supporting man-made AIDS,
Actually there is none - we didn't have the tools to create it or even
modify it at the time necessary to explain its spread. It was present
in gay men long before any of the fanciful rationalizations that try to
explain its spread.

One of the most humorous moments for me is when one conspiracy nut
showed me this photostat of a photostat article claiming the Army had
made it with a picture of the building it was supposedly made in on the
first page. I pointed at a speck in the picture and said 'that's me
waving - that's the building I worked in when in the Army in the early
to mid 70's. " They weren't working with retroviruses at all and I
would know I was the reference lab manager and had access from the top
floor to the 'shoooo - they don't exist' rooms in the basement and had
to do their support lab work. Now if a sexually transmitted version
of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever had shown up I'd be suspicious - but a
retrovirus?

Nope impossible, they didn't have the tools to create it, they didn't
have the means or time to evaluate it, and if it had been researched
there would be more residual evidence - remember how hard it was for
Gallo to figure out how to culture the damn thing, he had to steal the
technique from the French. If anyone in the military was working with
it they would have known how to culture it, and if anyone knew the
techs knew. And if they knew they would also have been marketing their
skills to retroviral researchers in the civilian world - that's just
the way it works - shoot I had 3 job offers from my position by
researchers returning to the private sector and one even said they
could get me out of the army early if I agreed to go work for them. If
it had been being worked with, Gallo would have had a tech who
surprisingly was very good at culturing it.

Just doesn't makes sense in so many ways - releasing a virus created by
a means that didn't exist, who's pathological mechanism you don't
understand, for which you have absolutely no treatment into a
population you can't control?

come on! even grade zed science fiction makes more sense than that!
Why not just say the martians released it and have done with it. All
the conspiracy nuts have is a military protocol for how researchers
should work with oncoviruses for the government (a boilerplate since
the military liked certain questions answered and found and precautions
taken for all viral research) and a heaping bowl of paranoia, nothing
else. Most disease researchers were drafted civilian doctors - guys
who would thumb their noses at you if you saluted them. If any of them
even knew someone who had been working on something that could have
been HIV (and yes, even in top secret government projects researchers
gossip like old women) they'd been talking their heads off long ago. I
know I would if they had, but it just wasn't going on at the places it
would have to be going on for the US government to have created the
virus.

Its amazing this chestnut keeps making the rounds to a new generation.
Think people - the idea that HIV was created makes no sense and is
unnecessary! It spreads in gay men well because:

€ it is best spread by semen making male to male vectoring the most
efficient as every infection is also a 'best case' vector.

€ anal intercourse is the very best non-direct blood vectoring known.

€ there was a highly promiscuous subgroup of gay men that had many sex
partners frequently, especially important that they had many in the
intitial 3 months of infection when they are 10-100x more infectious
than after antibodies are produced in quantity.

€ and finally epidemiology 101: a agent entered into a small population
spreads faster and saturates it faster than the same agent entered into
a larger population.

As such it spread quickly and effectively in the gay community just
like all the other semen transported viral agents have, largely sparing
the less vectored, massively larger heterosexual community.

No conspiracy, no intent, no martians required. It happened just the
way anyone who understands epidemiology would think it would happen.
What's fortunate is it happened when it did rather than 30 years
earlier when the state of technology would have meant much longer times
of identification, treatment, and understanding. Then you would have
seen quarantine camps.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
MC Bob
2004-09-13 22:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Do you know anything about AIDS transmission rates, and how it was
impossible for AIDS to have been around back then? It would have spread
the way it is today.
but it did - retrospective blood studies of a couple ugandan village
research projects showed that high prevalence of HIV in both the adults
and children, as well as their being history of Kaposi's sarcoma in
young adults (the observation that sparked the studies). What isolated
HIV was it orginated in the rural populations and it staying there.
But in the 70's the prolonged drought and resulting famine drove many
traditionally rural inhabitants into the urban areas - and what does an
uneducated girl do to make money in the city? Once the virus entered
the 'global community' as an STD it spread just fine.
Post by MC Bob
However, special viruses were developed even earlier than 1959. In the
30s, they gave the Visna (engineered) virus to two sheep and released
them in Iceland to study transmission rates on the island.
Visna is not an engineered virus, it is 100% natural and was first
identified in sheep.
Post by MC Bob
There is a ton of evidence supporting man-made AIDS,
Actually there is none - we didn't have the tools to create it or even
modify it at the time necessary to explain its spread. It was present
in gay men long before any of the fanciful rationalizations that try to
explain its spread.
One of the most humorous moments for me is when one conspiracy nut
showed me this photostat of a photostat article claiming the Army had
made it with a picture of the building it was supposedly made in on the
first page. I pointed at a speck in the picture and said 'that's me
waving - that's the building I worked in when in the Army in the early
to mid 70's. " They weren't working with retroviruses at all and I
would know I was the reference lab manager and had access from the top
floor to the 'shoooo - they don't exist' rooms in the basement and had
to do their support lab work. Now if a sexually transmitted version
of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever had shown up I'd be suspicious - but a
retrovirus?
Nope impossible, they didn't have the tools to create it, they didn't
have the means or time to evaluate it, and if it had been researched
there would be more residual evidence - remember how hard it was for
Gallo to figure out how to culture the damn thing, he had to steal the
technique from the French. If anyone in the military was working with
it they would have known how to culture it, and if anyone knew the
techs knew. And if they knew they would also have been marketing their
skills to retroviral researchers in the civilian world - that's just
the way it works - shoot I had 3 job offers from my position by
researchers returning to the private sector and one even said they
could get me out of the army early if I agreed to go work for them. If
it had been being worked with, Gallo would have had a tech who
surprisingly was very good at culturing it.
Just doesn't makes sense in so many ways - releasing a virus created by
a means that didn't exist, who's pathological mechanism you don't
understand, for which you have absolutely no treatment into a
population you can't control?
come on! even grade zed science fiction makes more sense than that!
Why not just say the martians released it and have done with it. All
the conspiracy nuts have is a military protocol for how researchers
should work with oncoviruses for the government (a boilerplate since
the military liked certain questions answered and found and precautions
taken for all viral research) and a heaping bowl of paranoia, nothing
else. Most disease researchers were drafted civilian doctors - guys
who would thumb their noses at you if you saluted them. If any of them
even knew someone who had been working on something that could have
been HIV (and yes, even in top secret government projects researchers
gossip like old women) they'd been talking their heads off long ago. I
know I would if they had, but it just wasn't going on at the places it
would have to be going on for the US government to have created the
virus.
Its amazing this chestnut keeps making the rounds to a new generation.
Think people - the idea that HIV was created makes no sense and is
€ it is best spread by semen making male to male vectoring the most
efficient as every infection is also a 'best case' vector.
€ anal intercourse is the very best non-direct blood vectoring known.
€ there was a highly promiscuous subgroup of gay men that had many sex
partners frequently, especially important that they had many in the
intitial 3 months of infection when they are 10-100x more infectious
than after antibodies are produced in quantity.
€ and finally epidemiology 101: a agent entered into a small population
spreads faster and saturates it faster than the same agent entered into
a larger population.
As such it spread quickly and effectively in the gay community just
like all the other semen transported viral agents have, largely sparing
the less vectored, massively larger heterosexual community.
No conspiracy, no intent, no martians required. It happened just the
way anyone who understands epidemiology would think it would happen.
What's fortunate is it happened when it did rather than 30 years
earlier when the state of technology would have meant much longer times
of identification, treatment, and understanding. Then you would have
seen quarantine camps.
Did the Army request $10,000,000 in 1969 for researching this, or not?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
RobertVB
2004-09-14 01:13:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Did the Army request $10,000,000 in 1969 for researching this, or not?
The possibility of there being immune attacking agents? Seems so. Was
HIV one of them? No. Wasn't identified, the disease process has a
mean incubation of 10 years, no animal models were possible, no way at
that time to culture it in vivo.

Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
MC Bob
2004-09-14 04:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
Says you?
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Virgin Message Board
http://bedoper.com/cgi-bin/plugins/BBS/bedoper_ubb/Ultimate.cgi?
action=intro

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537
RobertVB
2004-09-14 18:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
Says you?
Says common sense. Please explain how they could in few years:
€ ASK for funding in '69,
€ get funding sometime later
€ find a viral candidate of a kind that we had virtually no experience
with,
€ determine what it did in humans since there are no animal models,
€ somehow have figured out the human pathology even though the virus
has a mean incubation of 10 years until visible symptoms,
€ make the bizarre decision they want to introduce it into an
uncontrolled population, a disease they have no treatment for or cure,
learn how to culture it in quantity,
€ deliver it through some means, and have such massive presence in
RURAL settings of all places? I mean, urban would be the easiest
places to distribute a man made agent by any means.
€ and all in time to be finding HIV+ antibodies in american and african
blood as early as 1976?

If you think that any government could do that in that short a time you
have an incredibly unrealistic view of how efficient the US government
is.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
God in a Box
2004-09-14 19:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
Says you?
€ ASK for funding in '69,
Historical fact.
Post by RobertVB
€ get funding sometime later
1970. Historical fact.
Post by RobertVB
€ find a viral candidate of a kind that we had virtually no experience
with,
Assumption on your part.
Post by RobertVB
€ determine what it did in humans since there are no animal models,
False. See visna virus and bovine leukemia virus.
Post by RobertVB
€ somehow have figured out the human pathology even though the virus
has a mean incubation of 10 years until visible symptoms,
False.
Post by RobertVB
€ make the bizarre decision they want to introduce it into an
uncontrolled population, a disease they have no treatment for or cure,
learn how to culture it in quantity,
In case you haven't noticed, they have basically killed Africa. Why would
they want a cure?
Post by RobertVB
€ deliver it through some means,
The World Health Organization.
Post by RobertVB
and have such massive presence in
RURAL settings of all places?
Cite?
Post by RobertVB
I mean, urban would be the easiest
places to distribute a man made agent by any means.
€ and all in time to be finding HIV+ antibodies in american and african
blood as early as 1976?
What about SF, NY, etc?

What's so hard to understand about 1976?
Post by RobertVB
If you think that any government could do that in that short a time you
have an incredibly unrealistic view of how efficient the US government
is.
So you have no real evidence at all, just a lot of speculation and
strawmen.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
RobertVB
2004-09-14 23:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
Says you?
€ ASK for funding in '69,
Historical fact.
Post by RobertVB
€ get funding sometime later
1970. Historical fact.
Post by RobertVB
€ find a viral candidate of a kind that we had virtually no experience
with,
Assumption on your part.
Well since at did the lab work for the military research lab that would
have been doing the research my 'assumption' is a pretty good one.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ determine what it did in humans since there are no animal models,
False. See visna virus and bovine leukemia virus.
Which aren't HIV and can't infect human beings. HIV, the virus being
accused, has to incubate in humans for it to be pathological.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ somehow have figured out the human pathology even though the virus
has a mean incubation of 10 years until visible symptoms,
False.
Documented true - common knowledge true. You really don't know the
mean incubation time from exposure to HIV til the development of AIDS?
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ make the bizarre decision they want to introduce it into an
uncontrolled population, a disease they have no treatment for or cure,
learn how to culture it in quantity,
In case you haven't noticed, they have basically killed Africa. Why would
they want a cure?
Really? documentation please..
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ deliver it through some means,
The World Health Organization.
Post by RobertVB
and have such massive presence in
RURAL settings of all places?
Cite?
been there done that - keep up.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
I mean, urban would be the easiest
places to distribute a man made agent by any means.
€ and all in time to be finding HIV+ antibodies in american and african
blood as early as 1976?
What about SF, NY, etc?
What about them? Where do you think I was referring to in america?
Post by God in a Box
What's so hard to understand about 1976?
The fact that it would have had to been developed, mass produced and
delivered in time for it to be found in people in that year.
Probablility even IF there was such an effort - practically nil.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
If you think that any government could do that in that short a time you
have an incredibly unrealistic view of how efficient the US government
is.
So you have no real evidence at all, just a lot of speculation and
strawmen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Well informed speculation and evidence. - you have
nothing at all!!!!!!


Again, there is absolutely no need for a 'conspiracy theory' to explain
the epidemiological history of HIV. Your 'speculation and strawmen'
are based no distortions and out right lies as was demonstrated in the
note previous to this and is incompatible with the way research
progresses or is done anywhere.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
God in a Box
2004-09-16 07:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and have
whatever was created disseminated world wide to the extent that
symptoms are showing in African residents - no chance.
Says you?
€ ASK for funding in '69,
Historical fact.
?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ get funding sometime later
1970. Historical fact.
?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ find a viral candidate of a kind that we had virtually no experience
with,
Assumption on your part.
Well since at did the lab work for the military research lab that would
have been doing the research my 'assumption' is a pretty good one.
Oh, please tell us more...
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ determine what it did in humans since there are no animal models,
False. See visna virus and bovine leukemia virus.
Which aren't HIV and can't infect human beings. HIV, the virus being
accused, has to incubate in humans for it to be pathological.
Didn't you just claim there were no animal models?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ somehow have figured out the human pathology even though the virus
has a mean incubation of 10 years until visible symptoms,
False.
Documented true - common knowledge true. You really don't know the
mean incubation time from exposure to HIV til the development of AIDS?
So you're saying the 21 year olds who developed AIDS in 1980 actually got
it in 1970, as 11 year olds?

Oh, MEAN incubation time. Like drowning in a river with a mean depth of
three feet?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ make the bizarre decision they want to introduce it into an
uncontrolled population, a disease they have no treatment for or cure,
learn how to culture it in quantity,
In case you haven't noticed, they have basically killed Africa. Why would
they want a cure?
Really? documentation please..
Are you saying you don't know about the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ deliver it through some means,
The World Health Organization.
By WHO's own admission...
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
and have such massive presence in
RURAL settings of all places?
Cite?
been there done that - keep up.
And what was this cite about?

Didn't WHO innoculate people there?

By their own admission?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
I mean, urban would be the easiest
places to distribute a man made agent by any means.
€ and all in time to be finding HIV+ antibodies in american and african
blood as early as 1976?
What about SF, NY, etc?
What about them? Where do you think I was referring to in america?
So you're claiming Americans had AIDS in 1976? Based on what?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
What's so hard to understand about 1976?
The fact that it would have had to been developed, mass produced and
delivered in time for it to be found in people in that year.
Probablility even IF there was such an effort - practically nil.
So you claim.
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
If you think that any government could do that in that short a time you
have an incredibly unrealistic view of how efficient the US government
is.
So you have no real evidence at all, just a lot of speculation and
strawmen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Well informed speculation and evidence. - you have
nothing at all!!!!!!
Again, there is absolutely no need for a 'conspiracy theory' to explain
the epidemiological history of HIV. Your 'speculation and strawmen'
are based no distortions and out right lies as was demonstrated in the
note previous to this and is incompatible with the way research
progresses or is done anywhere.
That is your position, anyway.
--
http://BeDoper.com - BeOS and a hell of a lot more

Gortician's Not Dead, Punk
http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=15537

Gortician - "Purple Haze" cover
http://www.audiostreet.net/artists/000/640/gortician.html
RobertVB
2004-09-16 22:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Probability that any agency could ask for funding in 1969 and
have whatever was created disseminated world wide to the
extent that symptoms are showing in African residents - no
chance.
Says you?
€ ASK for funding in '69,
Historical fact.
?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ get funding sometime later
1970. Historical fact.
?
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ find a viral candidate of a kind that we had virtually no
experience >> > with,
Assumption on your part.
Well since at did the lab work for the military research lab that
would have been doing the research my 'assumption' is a pretty good
one.
Oh, please tell us more...
it falls on deaf ears so it seems wasted effort.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ determine what it did in humans since there are no animal models,
False. See visna virus and bovine leukemia virus.
Which aren't HIV and can't infect human beings. HIV, the virus
being accused, has to incubate in humans for it to be pathological.
Didn't you just claim there were no animal models?
that's what I just said - those are not animal models for HIV. You
aren't considering a different virus to be a 'model' for HIV are you?
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ somehow have figured out the human pathology even though the
virus has a mean incubation of 10 years until visible symptoms,
False.
Documented true - common knowledge true. You really don't know the
mean incubation time from exposure to HIV til the development of AIDS?
So you're saying the 21 year olds who developed AIDS in 1980 actually
got it in 1970, as 11 year olds?
Simply it is an 'average' - so that means you might have a few that
showed symptoms in a couple years and you might have some that take 18
years but when you average them all together it equals 10 years.

Of course some people progressed from exposure to AIDS rapidly - it was
this rapid progression that was verified before the etiological agent
was identified that made everyone think HIV and AIDS was far more
fulminate than it turned out to be. It wasn't until more time had
passes that they were able to figure out that longer incubations were
the norm.

This is so obvious from just a common sense approach I think you
are being deliberately obtuse which doesn't help your case at all.

If you were doing research for just a handful of years with a virus
that only causes pathology in humans, how would you know these were
only a few of the eventual cases? Even if you were injecting people in
1970 - only a few of them would be getting sick in a few years. Even
*IF* someone was doing this it would look like HIV had a low incidence
of pathology, basically a failure. When it would be far easier and
effective to have used viruses they knew much about like Bolivian
hemorrhagic fever to accomplish this 'basically killing' of a
continent, why would they use such an unproven and seemingly inefficent
agent?
Post by God in a Box
Oh, MEAN incubation time. Like drowning in a river with a mean depth
of three feet?
If it ranged from 0-6 feet yes 3 would be its mean depth (though 3 feet
is enough to drown in)
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ make the bizarre decision they want to introduce it into an
Post by MC Bob
Post by RobertVB
Post by RobertVB
uncontrolled population, a disease they have no treatment
for or cure, >> > learn how to culture it in quantity,
In case you haven't noticed, they have basically killed Africa.
Why would they want a cure?
Really? documentation please..
Are you saying you don't know about the AIDS epidemic in Africa?
And the population of Africa is still increasing inspite of it - hardly
'basically killing' at all.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
€ deliver it through some means,
The World Health Organization.
By WHO's own admission...
No that is not what they admitted at all from your own notes.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
and have such massive presence in RURAL settings of all places?
Cite?
been there done that - keep up.
And what was this cite about?
Didn't WHO innoculate people there?
Of course they did.
Post by God in a Box
By their own admission?
And the idea that the smallpox vaccine activated latent HIV infections
is now shown to be false. So in the end they admitted to vaccinating
people against smallpox - non-story.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
I mean, urban would be the easiest places to distribute a man
made agent by any means. € and all in time to be finding HIV+
antibodies in american and african blood as early as 1976?
What about SF, NY, etc?
What about them? Where do you think I was referring to in america?
So you're claiming Americans had AIDS in 1976? Based on what?
On the fact that irwin blood bank in SF had people donating blood with
HIV antibodies present.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
What's so hard to understand about 1976?
The fact that it would have had to been developed, mass produced
and delivered in time for it to be found in people in that year.
Probablility even IF there was such an effort - practically nil.
So you claim.
So common sense would claim too. Again, you can nay say all you want
but you have yet to show any reasonable mechanism for this task to have
been accomplished. Fess up, how was this mammoth effort done, in total
secrecy, with not a single person associated with it ever coming
forward and saying "yep that's what we did"? Where are the lab techs
that were working with retroviruses? Fort Detrick USAMRIID the only
cat 4 research facuility at the time had research lab
techs who were 7th day adventist consciencious objectors - really think
they would have remained silent? Where are the draftee researchers that
have raised their hands and said 'yep they had me working with just
such a virus in the early 70's'? Their aren't any? Well that's
because it just didn't happen.
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
Post by God in a Box
Post by RobertVB
If you think that any government could do that in that short a
time you >> > have an incredibly unrealistic view of how
efficient the US government >> > is.
Post by MC Bob
So you have no real evidence at all, just a lot of speculation
and >> strawmen.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Well informed speculation and evidence. - you
have nothing at all!!!!!!
Post by God in a Box
Again, there is absolutely no need for a 'conspiracy theory' to
explain > the epidemiological history of HIV. Your 'speculation
and strawmen' > are based no distortions and out right lies as
was demonstrated in the > note previous to this and is
incompatible with the way research > progresses or is done
anywhere.
That is your position, anyway.
And the position of anyone with a smattering of knowledge about
epidemiology and how the government works.
--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same-sex couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...