Lawsuit Claims US manufactured the AIDS Virus, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 24-6-2005 @ 10:32 AM by hands
....then why did the first victim come from Africa, in 1959?

aids.about.com...

(If my memory serves me right - he actually died in Manchester, UK in the university hospital there and some interested academics saved samples out of curiosity.)


reply posted on 24-6-2005 @ 10:41 AM by deltaboy
en.wikipedia.org...

Origins of AIDS
"Studies suggest that the virus initially spread from West Africa. It is possible that there were several initial sources corresponding to different strains of HIV (HIV-1 and HIV-2). The sample fluid earliest known for human-carrier was from 1959, which derived from a British sailor; he contracted it in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Other early samples include one for an American male-died in 1969, and one for a Norwegian sailor of 1976. The earliest journaled death more lenient to the West- in due to AIDS, is attributed to Dr. Grethe Rask who was a Danish surgeon in the early 1970s of Congo.

The official date for the beginning of the AIDS pandemic is marked as June 5, 1981, when the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported in a newsletter that unusual clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma were discovered in gay men in New York and San Francisco in the late 1970s. More KS clusters were discovered among these otherwise healthy men in other cities throughout the country, and a subsequent investigation of these infections revealed that the victims had other opportunistic diseases as well. Many died within a few months of diagnosis despite receiving the best treatments at the time, leading to speculation that they had an immune disorder hampering their ability to fight the multiple infections.

The AIDS report of opportunistic infections for gay male intravenous drug users from the 1980s was initially termed 'GRID' (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). However, similar opportunistic infections were reported in people in other categories. By the end of 1982, more AIDS cases emerged around the world, especially blood transfusion recipients, intravenous drug users, and immigrants from certain countries such as Haiti. The disorder was officially renamed AIDS at the end of 1983.

Some past studies of AIDS in Africa have used a very loose definition that results in the overdiagnosis of AIDS, even when HIV is not present, because this definition avoids expensive tests. This complicates epidemiological comparisons. The controversial OPV AIDS hypothesis raises speculation that the origin of AIDS is due to the oral polio vaccination program that took place in the late 1950s of Africa."

it looks like it came from oral polio vaccination that took place in Africa, guess the genes in Africans cause a change.


always knew there be side effects wen rushing a new treatment would backfire.


reply posted on 26-6-2005 @ 09:49 AM by EmbryonicEssence
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Absolutely; this actually supports the notion though, that there's no conspiracy involved - having worked on both sides of the pharmaceutical industry, it's fairly obvious that there's just so much competition between companies around the world...if there was a cure, believe me, we'd know about it. It would be patented to the hilt.

It just makes more sense to me:

Living bodies = more money for drug company.
Dead bodies = less money for drug company.

Basic economics, you know?


I'm not so sure about that. If you have a cure, how are you going to continue to make money on the cure? Drug companies aren't exactly making big money on the Polio vaccine and Small Pox vaccine (until the recent Small Pox scare - which could have been artificially produced to help increase business for the pharms) anymore. If you can cure everyone, than how do you continue to make money when you have next to no one to cure anymore?

Living bodies definitely equal more money for the drug companies, and doesn't it make more sense to keep people hoping that they will be cured of their ailments than to actually cure them? If you make them think the drugs are making them (or going to make them) better, then they'll continue to buy the drugs, won't they? Do they care whether we die? Of course not, we breed like rabbits nowadays. We probably breed faster than we actually die now (especially in areas that aren't war-torn) - when one person dies, we have ten more to replace them.

Economics has taught me that hope is the easiest thing to sell and make money off of. How else do you explain the wealth of the Catholic church?


reply posted on 16-7-2005 @ 12:14 AM by FredT
Originally posted by soficrow
Any updates on this one?

It's worth watching.


The site from the Org. Article has an update from Nune 28th, but warns not to post anything from the site so follow this link:

www.dldewey.com...

However, this is the only site that really seems to have any information about it. The case is supposed to be in the San Diego Federal Court with case number 04 CV 1345, but after spending some time searching I can find no reference to that particular case.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Cooking With Aluminum Foil Should Be Avoided
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags
"US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google"
  Posted 17 days ago with 38 member flags
A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags
Stem cells bring back feeling for paralysed patients
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
Gruenenthal\'s thalidomide apology \'insulting\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags