It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was AID's a Bioweapon created to exterminate the Black race? Nobel Prize winner thinks so.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
This is quite a controversial theory. Could AIDs have been a bioweapon engineered for the purpose of destroying the black race?



AIDS Created as Biowarfare, Says Nobel Laureate

The first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, Wangari Maatha of Kenya, spoke out on the AIDS virus saying it was man-made and deliberateloy created as a weapon of biowarfare."In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare,” she said. "Why has there been so much secrecy about AIDS? When you ask where did the virus come from, it raises a lot of flags. That makes me suspicious,” Maathai said.The Kenya based East Africa Standard reported that in response to questions from Asian and European media, she said, "I want to dedicate the prize the African woman.

I want to hold and embrace her. She has suffered so much and I feel this is an honour to her."Although I am a biologist, I have not done any research. I may not be able to say who developed the (HIV) virus but it was meant to wipe out the Black race," she continued."When she first blamed the HIV/Aids on 'some sadistic scientists, Professor Maathai kicked a storm, leaving some experts outraged and others supporting her," the Standard reported.

"Initially, said Maathai, HIV/Aids was only concentrated in selected spots in the continent, only afflicting the 'undesirable classes.' She insisted that some scientists from the developed world deliberately researched and developed the virus in order to "punish the Blacks".

www.conspiracyplanet.com...


If this theory is correct, what government or agency was responsible for it's spread? What would this mean in the eyes of the world if it were actually proven true? I don't really know how to feel about this article, but the fact does remain that AID's is a devestating epidemic in Africa, killing millions. I hate to think that a government agency would be resposible for such horror, but I don't completely ignore the fact that it is entirely possible. Even probable. Anyone else have a take on this?

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Why though? There are already diseases that only affect the Black race, so why create a disease that will infect everybody, and not just a particular race?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   


Why though? There are already diseases that only affect the Black race, so why create a disease that will infect everybody, and not just a particular race?



I think what is meant by these statements is more that AIDs was designed to be a hoorific killer, not specifically designed to attack blacks ONLy, but more that it was engineered and introduced to the continent of Africa as a weapon of destruction. And I am no scientist, but the only disease that I am aware of that excusively targets black people is cicle cell anemia, which is not a devestating killer like HIV and AID's. AID's probably claims more lives in a year than cicle cell does in twenty. Not so sure I agree with her exactly, but you have to admit that since AID's came into the spotlight, it has been prevalent among society's "undesireables" so to speak, like homosexuals, IV drug users, and it is ripping through Africa. That's a fact. I would like to hear some other opinions on this matter. Is this all speculation or could it hold more truth than we know?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
um...i would think if the goverment (seeing that at the time HIV came around only goverment agencies had resources to do something like that) if the goverment truly wanted to punish or whipe out black people they could of easily whipped up a much more efficient virus then HIV. especially one that is so easy to avoid....all you have to do is not be a fool and wrap ur tool...



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
W.H.O. (world health orginization) created aids to deal with the new problem we have of over population. I have more supporting proof of this on request.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
There's a good discussion in ATSNN on this topic from last year:

ATS: Nobel Laureate, Wangari Maathai, Claims AIDS an Engineered Disease

I encourage people to read the responses there as well.
.

Edit: Moving to Medical Conspiracies.

[edit on 3/28/2006 by Gools]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
This is also the case for me. I'm convinced about it, I even think the virus was spread trough vaccination and the red cross (think rothschild). Its a poor people disease, knowing we western people could aford a condomand maybe a remedy. Those africans couldn't and were not informed.
I even think there is a therapy, because its a man created virus, so everything we create we can destroy.(also the case in ict, hackers), but it wouldn't be profitable for the drug businesses.
The neocons openly admit that the world population has to be less, towards 500million or something. That means that the inhabitants of the naturally wealthiest nations should be wiped out. Who are they, middle east and african people, they have the most precious continent, think about oil, minerals, gemstones, plants....
The next victims will br the Chinese , Iranian and N Koreans.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackOps719
Could AIDs have been a bioweapon engineered for the
purpose of destroying the black race?


No. If it were engineered to destroy the black race it wouldn't
be something that kills so many in other races. It would have
been developed to attack just black people (I don't know how
that could be done, but the bioengineers would have figured it out)

Different groups who have high AIDs numbers have been laying claim
that it was designed to kill them. Homosexuals, blacks, drug addicts....

Truth of the matter is that it wouldn't be killing ANY of them if they
would stop leading the lifestyle that passes the disease around.

If that woman wants to stop AIDs in the black race then she needs to
tell people to be monogamous and to use condoms (which help stop
the spread, but not always). Same with the homosexual community.
If black people or homosexuals (or anyone else) get HIV then it is
a direct result of their own actions - either unprotected sex, sex
that was protected but the protection failed, dirty needles while using drugs, etc.

The only people who can claim that they got HIV though no willfull
action of their own are the children born with HIV and those who
received blood transfusions. That's the harsh and UN-Politically
Correct truth.


[edit on 3/29/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by derfyxxx
The neocons openly admit that the world population has to be less, towards 500million or something.


Oh please!


1 - Post some credible links that show that people with views that
lean to the right want to drop the world population to 500 million.

2 - Post some credible links to show that it's ONLY those on the right
that think that.

3 - The population of America alone is 300 million. The entire world
economy would collapse with only 500 million people in it. The medicines
we enjoy that come from other parts of the world would be gone.
The environment would be better off, but of those 500 million many
would die off from lack of medicines and other essentials that a world
economy brings them. Goods and foods and services would
absolutely disappear. Life would be extremely different than it is now.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I hate the whole white/black divide thing. All such an argument does is further create doubnts in people's minds furthering their thoughts on discrimination between races.

I think the only reason for the spread of AIDS is the fact that most Western cultures have a good understanding and are taught from an early age that condoms are a must. I think in the UK sex ed lessons start when you are around 12 (not absolutely accurate) but still shows from a young age we are educated on these risks.

I read somewhere that some black people in Africa are against using condoms and preach they are a weapon from the 'white man' and thus do not need to use them. Until the education is there, then the problem will be be helped.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   
AIDS engineered and purposefully spread? Seems very likely to me.

Targetting blacks/Africans-again likley, but not them soley. They would make the ideal test subjects though for those with evil agendas to reduce population, and or test the engineered illnesses though.

Look at oral polio-It caused more cases of polio in Africa because it was a live virus and the water systems contaminated with the shedding illness spread the live virus further and faster...wiping people out and causing more alarm warranting more polio vaccinations being needed...or so they thought. Are we REALLY trying to do a good thing when we go into other countries to "help" them? or is it a ruse?

AIDS engineered and let loose in Africa-I can buy that for alot of reasons but I don't think it is a "black and white" issue.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanTruth of the matter is that it wouldn't be killing ANY of them if they would stop leading the lifestyle that passes the disease around.

If that woman wants to stop AIDs in the black race then she needs to
tell people to be monogamous and to use condoms (which help stop
the spread, but not always). Same with the homosexual community.
If black people or homosexuals (or anyone else) get HIV then it is
a direct result of their own actions - either unprotected sex, sex
that was protected but the protection failed, dirty needles while using drugs, etc.


Exactly! If you know the disease is prevalent among your local community then abstain from sex or take the chance, risk infection and death will be your result. It's called using your brain and free will.
If everybody in an African village knows that AIDS is within it's population and people are getting infected and they're still having sex (knowing this is how it's spread), than it's their own fault. If you're gay and you're running around screwing other men left and right without protection then don't complain when you get sick and start dying. It's like a cigarette smoker who chain smokes and ends up with lung cancer. He knew the risk he was taking but ignored the reality and in the end his lack of common sense on the matter lead to his death. Don't want to die of lung cancer? Quit smoking. Don't want to get AIDS? Quit screwing, become celibate, abstain or take the risk and get AIDS. It's a choice!

You can blame it on the government, but the simple fact is that it is "avoidable" if you use your brains. Now if, you get it as a newborn or from a transfusion, well, that sucks, and it's not your fault. Collateral damage....

Question: Why do we as humans think we know the origin of every disease? Did it ever occur to people that diseases occur in nature? They just pop up one day? Do you think back in the Dark Ages that some king conjured up the Black Death? Did somebody at the turn of the last century brew up tuberculosis? No. Disease pops up when it wants to. Just because we think we know everything in these modern times does not mean horrific disease can't rear it's head and kill millions. As long as we are made of flesh, we will succumb to disease. We're not gods.

When AIDS hit, the biggest impact was felt among gays and IV drug users.
Undesirables? In who's eyes? Man or God's? Who's to say God didn't have a part in this. He's been known to send plagues to punish before....

we'll never know.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by formoneyormind
W.H.O. (world health orginization) created aids to deal with the new problem we have of over population. I have more supporting proof of this on request.


But why create a disease that takes years to kill people, costs billions in healthcare worldwide, and which has had no effect on global population, which has risen considerably since AIDS first appeared?

The last disease to have any impact of populations was Spanish 'Flu in 1919.....

The spread of AIDS in the third world is, as already mentioned, primarily down to lack of understanding about the use of condoms and how AIDS is spread.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
let me get this straight. A nobel winner thinks AIDS was manufactured to target blacks? From what I recall, it first hit the gay community big time. So much so that it was referred to as the "G.R.I.D" or "Gay related immunodificiency disease" for a while and, seeing as it was, for a few years, predominantly gays being infected, the US President wouldn't even mention the disease.

They should take his award, money and prestige back.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I like the point Essan brings up. If HIV were created as some sort of population control device, which I'm fairly certain it wasn't, then why has the population risen steadily, even since the first confirmed case of HIV? If an agency wanted to reduce population, wouldn't they go for something a bit faster or deadlier? Perhaps Ebola haemorrhagic fever, Spanish Flu, etc. ? You can't really argue that they released HIV as a way to control population and at the same time make money off of supportive therapies, as well, because the majority of African victims can't afford those therapies.

~MFP



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotolerance
the simple fact is that it is "avoidable" if you use your brains. Now if, you get it as a newborn or from a transfusion, well, that sucks, and it's not your fault. Collateral damage....


"Collateral damage" is an interesting term you use, since it's origins have to do with the unfortunate casualities as a side effects of a military action.

I am not picking on you here, it is just an interesting choice of words that sparks my interest.

I guess if you use it just in the sense that it is an "unintentional damage" I'd wonder what the intentional damage is? And who's intention? Is this an unintentional side effect of an act by the government, God, or___?

I mean it can't be an unintentional side effect of the illness as that would mean the illness itself had some tupe of intelligent agenda to kill specific typs, and the innocents born are it's unintentional side effect.

I would think God could certainly curb any collateral damage by causing a plague that would not kill innocents perhaps?

So that leaves the military...hmmm...collateral damage...I can buy that term in proper context I guess...maybe a biologically engineered illness gone awry when introduced for field study?



[edit on 29-3-2006 by think2much]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4docIf an agency wanted to reduce population, wouldn't they go for something a bit faster or deadlier? Perhaps Ebola haemorrhagic fever, Spanish Flu, etc. ?


while I don't think AIDS was manufactured to control any population, I do think that the diseases you mention as more effective would be much harder to control. Look at how worried some people are getting over the bird flu.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by bsl4docIf an agency wanted to reduce population, wouldn't they go for something a bit faster or deadlier? Perhaps Ebola haemorrhagic fever, Spanish Flu, etc. ?


while I don't think AIDS was manufactured to control any population, I do think that the diseases you mention as more effective would be much harder to control. Look at how worried some people are getting over the bird flu.


True, but look at ebola's natural epidemiology. It infects a villager, he spreads it to the village, most of them die, and the disease disappears from the area. It kills so quickly that it effectively dies with its last victim.

~MFP



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2muchIs this an unintentional side effect of an act by the government, God, or___?

I would think God could certainly curb any collateral damage by causing a plague that would not kill innocents perhaps?[edit on 29-3-2006 by think2much]


hehe...I guess I was being ambiguous. I kinda meant both actually.....an unintentional side effect, by man (if that's the case), or by God (if that's the case). I'm not sure which one it is to be honest. I have no idea. I'm not so sure if God curbs collateral damage. Their are many instances in the Bible where the "just" suffer with the "wicked" because of God's wrath. I know it also states somewhere in Revelations that during the time of tribulation that the good will suffer with the bad. And the Tribulation will be God's wrath upon man for his sin and wickedness......unless that only comes about when the world is running low on "just" people and evil rules. Who knows???

Why do bad things happen to good people? because in the loooooonnnnnggggg run....something good and positive always emerges out of it. Most of the time it's a "lesson".......



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
BTW, they announced yesterday a possible cure of sorts for HIV. Could be promising...
www.chron.com...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join