Foundation Of Aids (from ATSNN)

The advent of AIDS has been followed by many speculations as to its origin. It might be traced to the U.S. Department of Defense appropriations of 1970, when the U.S. Army was provided money for research, test and evaluation of biological weapons, including viruses that directly attack the human immune system.

---

If this Aids cover-up has been going on for about 30 years then if this ever came out, the American Government and other poeple in charge would be brought to justice and put away.

Related News Links:
www.sonic.net

This isn't breaking news. This is is "put on your tin foil helmet and watch out the windows for the black helipcopter flying over" news.

A brief read of the actual site reveals bias, let alone the story itself.

Sundance cable channel has run a couple of documentaries recently based on a theory of an English author, Edward Hooper, who has claimed that AIDS started as a result of polio research in the 1950s done by a group from the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. Hooper cited the unexplained early rapid spread of AIDS in the Congo and claimed that the only possible reason had to be that the polio vaccine trials in the 50s which featured the use of chimpanzees had caused the appearance of AIDS, inasmuch as the virus commonly accepted to have been the precursor of AIDS, the simian virus SIV, is found in African chimps and not other species. But there's another possible explanation for why AIDS spread so fast in the Congo early-on. I would submit that AIDS actually started as a result of Americans from San Francisco and New York (who were "bath house types" vacationing in Haiti in the late 1970s. It is a fact that AIDS spread very early from Haiti and SanFrancisco and New York. If a practitioner of some ongoing black art voodoo that thrives in both Haiti and Africa had transmitted the AIDS virus (HIV) from the Americans to the African voodoo community, then a pre existing fertile "bed" for the virus would have existed for it to spread rapidly once HIV had changed from the previous African/Haitian benign virus into a newly mutated deadly AIDS virus. I think this is a more likely theory for the early spread of AIDS in the Congo than Hooper's theory which is getting so much attention on the Sundance channel.

Check out this thread

Edward Hooper's theory fails for a couple of reasons, the more obvious of which is the vaccine was made from the macaque monkey, not the chimpanzee. Macaques don't generally harbour SIV, so the "jump" and subsequent mutation to HIV wouldn't be feasible; when the batch was tested, apparently no chimp or SIV material was found.

It's generally accepted that AIDS first appeared in the late 1950s , with some guessing as early as the 1930s, which would also render the 1970 Bath-house Origin Theory unfeasible.

While it's true that a blood specimen from the 1930s has been said to have AIDS virus positivity, that result has been challenged by the Hooper faction since the specimen is so old. The question of AIDS' existence in the 1930s which the medical establishment has cited as ruling out Hooper's theory of AIDS' origin in the 50s thus is considered still in question. My point that the AIDS epidemic started in haiti in the late 70s is another question entirely. The point is that there has long been a simian SIV virus in monkeys, and that natives of Africa and Haiti long since built up immunity to it; passive immunity prior to birth from the maternal antibodies, then very gradual active immunity after birth, and the HIV virus thus was benign for a long time except for an occasional sporadic case like possibly the 1930s one. But the real epidemic started in the late 70s when unprecedented modern epidemiologic factors came into play which converted the "sporadic case" scenario (of the benign virus going to deadly in a non-immune person) into an epidemic scenario. Many new cases started appearing in Haiti, San Francisco, and New york, and soon after in central Africa.

Hmm....that's not quite what I was getting at. I'll try and rephrase, sorry

The reason Hooper's theory is largely suspect these days is because the vaccines in question were tested and showed no sign of either SIV or chimpanzee cells. It didn't really have much to do with HIV appearing much earlier - this can't be proven either way, if we're being painstakingly accurate, as it's going to rely purely on supposition and samples which may or may not have degraded over time (though it would stand to reason that if there's a verified case prior to the OPV being used, it tends to render that theory unreliable at best).

Haiti is area of many ports and as with any port, sexual promiscuity was (and still is) rampant - this is a reasonable explanation for the virulent spread of the disease in Haiti, and by extension, many other places. That's not really in question, particularly knowing the verified history of bath-houses and the like.

On another tangent, could you give me a source that would show immunity to SIV amongst African and Haitian humans? That's quite fascinating to me.
tia

Also, if we know that HIV appeared in the 1950s, this doesn't preclude the theory that Haiti was a prime factor in the spread; if anything, it would fit in quite nicely.

Response to Tinkleflower, as to whether direct evidence can be given showing immunity to HIV among Haitian-Africans prior to transition of SIV to deadly HIV strain. My theory is that a benign form of HIV existed prior to the deadly form of HIV that appeared around 1979. I don't know how you could prove that in intermediate benign form of HIV existed which transformed to the deadly AIDS strain after Americans from San Francisco & NY frequented Haiti as vacationers in the late 70s. My theory is that major epidemics - black death, syphilis, 1918 swine flu, as well as HIV, all resulted from humans eating animals harboring a benign form of the disease organism, and/or animals eating human tissue. I submit that black death probably resulted from medieval city dwellers eating rats and/or rats eating human corpses. 1918 swine flu from swine eating corpses in the battlefields and humans eating the swine. Another cable program (not the Sundance/Hooper program) presented a well researched theory by an Englishwoman who has studied skeletal remains of people from seaports in the Middle Ages showing unmistakable lesions of syphilis of bone - prior to Columbus - and claimed that sailors had been visiting the New World where natives harboring a benign form of syphilis, with early-life-immunity making it benign, had given the sailors a deadly form of syphilis inasmuch as the sailors were not immune to it from maternal antibodies and then gradually acquired active immunity later in childhood. Very similar theory to the one I propose for HIV. The idea is that the Caribbean natives were eating monkey meat and the Africans also, probably Haitians also, so the benign form of AIDS or syphilis never developed until new non-immune multiple-contact factors became superimposed on the native scenario. To me, this model makes much more sense than any other theory of the origin of AIDS. Once the natives had transferred the HIV virus to the Americans and it mutated in these non-immune hosts, the natives - in the Congo, whom Hooper focused on - would no longer be immune because the HIV strain had changed so drastically. Medical researchers have long been unable to produce an AIDS vaccine due to this prodigious mutational property of HIV.

Fair enough. There isn't any proof - though we would generally be able to gauge the differences between a more benign virus and one which is markedly more deadly, as we can with influenza. Note too that Europeans and Asians also visited Haiti in the late 70s, and (particularly in the case of Europe) didn't see such a rapid increase in HIV cases as a result, which would be expected.



But....we know how bubonic plague was spread....and it had nothing to do with eating infected animals.

Bubonic plague was transmitted by the the bite of an infected flea.. The bacteria (Yersinia pestis) multiplied inside the flea...the flea then bit the human host, passing on the bacteria.

Even allowing for current debates relating to exactly which bacteria caused the problem (some accuse b. anthracis of being responsible), the mode of transmission is certain - it's not from eating infected flesh. We also know how syphilis is transmitted; there are still horribly frequent epidemics, and again, they have nothing to do with eating infected flesh.

HIV on the other hand, is not transmitted by fleas; and the hypothesis of eating infected tissue makes more sense than it would with the plague scenario. Also, your hypothesis wouldn't account for populations where the alleged non-human carrier is either not present, or if it's present, common enough to become food for humans.

And with regards to immunity - yup! People have varying degrees of immunity to certain things; the simplest example is influenza. Pesky little virus that mutates on a practically yearly basis, with the associated immunity issues.

To be fair, we still don't really know why one person is more susceptible to a particular virus than another (immunocompromised people notwithstanding); again supporting the theory that the virus is extremely capable of mutating into a more deadly form.

Response to Tinkleflower: The concept that the Black Death resulted from fleas on infected rats and then humans getting it from the flea bites was formerly universally accepted. More recently, a new concept has arisen (I don't have the specific references at hand) that another infective process actually went. I saw an article a year or so ago which claimed that sophisticated research into old tissue specimens led to the new idea that a virus was involved (a rat virus or murine virus.) Yersinia pestis, which formerly was generally accepted to have been the organism behind medieval black death (which admittedly had similar signs and symptoms as modern bubonic plague known to be caused by Yersinia pestis, also called Pasteurella pestis), is another kind of bug from the virus the new study indicated caused the medieval black death. The newer study concluded that the medieval plague was caused by a virus from rats. That could be analogous to AIDS which also involves a virus from an animal, a monkey, and could be consistent with my idea that the two epidemics involved the same kind of mechanism.

Also to Tinkleflower, added thoughts: The Sundance programs presenting Hooper's theory of AIDS being caused by the polio researchers included interviews by Africans still living in the Congo who worked with the U.S. researchers from the Wistar Institute, and these Africans swore up and down on the TV documentary that Chimpanzees were used, and said nothing about macaque monkeys being used. The Africans seemed to have no agenda and spoke in an honest way, so I am inclined to believe their version rather than another one. Again, though, I oppose the programs' underlying premise that they have uncovered a medical-research-caused, epidemic. I just wish somebody would take a new approach and think in broader terms and uncover the true story about why HIV spread so dramatically in the Congo, an observation potentially pregnant with insights that right now is being ignored by conventional approaches on both sides.

The biggest conspiracy theory on AIDS was started by the KGB claiming the Virus was made at a US military installation in America. There is now almost without a doubt evidence that the virus came from freaky African sex with green monkies.

Except there isn't.

But thanks for the giggle, anyway!