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.

 

HIV conspiracy

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Is it me or do other feel that people who make posts like this need to hide behind an alt that is somewhat new with very few posts. If you are going post crap at least don't hide behind a new log name...stand up for what you believe and where everyone can see you by god! hehe


Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm actually a new member,no trolling here.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You have a GOD all right,,

His name is DoH,,

God of ignorance

That's real mature of you dude.


You know I have read most Majors posts , melatonin madismysoul is another and I find it rather curious that we have so much to offer on so many issues of common ground. With the exception of how we got here , where we are going etc, we are pretty much the same. MOST of the christians I know are studious successful hard working and NICE people.

I never said christians were bad people,s**t I even believe in Jesus to a certain extent(about 80%).I'm just dissapointed in what there masters stand for....who you ask,the Pope,Jesuits and Jews just to name a few.


Not only are they nice but they actually TRY to be. This makes it hard for them as the moment they lose it they are ripped for it. That doesn't stop them from trying again. Where I find most of our common ground is on subjects like this, 911 many others where I think I would actually seek them out as council.

No comment...you know what see post above...


I sure would ask that on debunking your black theory

There not out to get us dude,they already did and continue to do so..


Nice post by the way Xtrozero

I'm not this guy who you are assuming, I am a new memeber of Haitian descent....and if thats irelavant to you so be it,I SEE NOTHING WRONG IN MAKING A NEW FRIEND




[edit on 11-9-2007 by Blackmaster]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Deleted unnecessary post.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Get 'em young


Originally posted by Xtrozero
To the ones who think it is god’s way to get at the sinners of the world what then about the babies born with HIV? About 1/3 of all births from HIV mothers are also HIV.

So what?

God is omniscient. He sees all that will happen in the future.

Therefore he knows who will be a sinner, and who will not. He has known this since the beginning of time.

He uses this knowledge to reward the virtuous and punish the sinful, not just in Heaven but also on Earth.

The rich are better than the poor in God's sight. That's why they're rich.

As far as AIDS babies are concerned, he's just getting his strike in a bit earlier than he usually does.

To those who think this is ridiculous, I say: it's ridiculous all right, but it's what most American Christians are expected to believe. It is the philosophy of John Calvin -- the philosophy of Protestantism. A few Protestant congregations, such as the Church of England (the Episcopal Church) don't accept it, but the overwhelming majority do.

[edit on 11-9-2007 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
(double post)

[edit on 11-9-2007 by scientist]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
You want to explain how major is being a hipocrite?


sure. I say this with all respect as well - but as far as I can tell from every single official resource, there has not yet been a PROVEN, definitive source. Just theories. Therefore, to say that any explanation other than natural causes is "ignorant." Being dismissive of all other theories, just to put a certain theory above all others, is hypocritical. Why? Because the only universally accepted concept is that there is no definitive source, therefore saying that "anything but X" is ignorant, is again being dismissive - and if Major wants to consider those with a theory that's "anything but X" as ignorant, well that's what I would consider hypocritical.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Theory is one thing but speculation and conjecture is quite another and that is all you have to substantiate your story telling.


I don't have a theory, and have been learning via this thread. I just notice when some make matter-of-fact claims, because they stick out like sore thumbs, when within the context of the field that is known for not having many answers.


Originally posted by Conspiriology
Major on the otherhand has offered the most compelling arguments back and supported by scholars who's research is respected in the science community. That's not being a hipocrite that's called KNOWING WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT and not wavering to the whims and flights of fancy from fairy tales and other unsubstantiated drivel I have seen here.

I agree, Major has contributed a great deal to this discussion. I do have a problem with "KNOWING WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT," especially when the aforementioned OFFICIAL SOURCES do not make such claims. It would be one thing if there were a collective consensus regarding this, but just having a theory, and personal experience does not equal "KNOWING YOU ARE RIGHT ."

Calling all other theories "drivel" is simply a cop-out, and boderline flaming. What if I just popped into every thread that I knew more about than others, than just started claiming that MY theories were right, and anyone else saying otherwise is just ignorant?

To re-emphasize, I am NOT proposing that it was created for population control, however I am still very much open to the idea that it was in some way manufactured, or developed, or mutated / etc. through experimentation. And again, as far as I can tell - there may be theories that explain more, but nothing has proven or disproven a man-made theory, anymore than the species-jump theory.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
[
God is omniscient. He sees all that will happen in the future.

Therefore he knows who will be a sinner, and who will not. He has known this since the beginning of time.

He uses this knowledge to reward the virtuous and punish the sinful, not just in Heaven but also on Earth.

The rich are better than the poor in God's sight. That's why they're rich.


You are too simplistic with all this. You are falling into the logic loop that there is no free choice and we are all here on an unchangeable path, and if that was the case then there is no need to be saved from sinning since you do not have a choice. Why doesn’t god give you an infinite number of choices to choose from? Why reward or punish if our paths are set in stone so to speak? And what happened to the meek shall inherit the earth? Also why is god sad or angry when we make the wrong choices?

I do not mind if you apply your logic about HIV to all diseases and everything else that is bad to humans. Then you can say god created everything bad to punish us. To say god made HIV to punish us leads to a conclusion that he picked that one virus to take on sinners, and that is not very omniscient to me.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
I am still very much open to the idea that it was in some way manufactured, or developed, or mutated / etc. through experimentation. And again, as far as I can tell - there may be theories that explain more, but nothing has proven or disproven a man-made theory, anymore than the species-jump theory.


I would say the emperical data greatly favors cross-species over any other hypothesis. One of the tell telling part of the cross-species is the emperical data on how chimps were infected from two other breeds of monkeys. This makes the human-jump highy likely.

If you are going to be open minded about the hypotheses of man-made than you might as well be open to all the other ones with about the same amount of support data such as the hypothesis that it was caused by fairy dust.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I would say the emperical data greatly favors cross-species over any other hypothesis. One of the tell telling part of the cross-species is the emperical data on how chimps were infected from two other breeds of monkeys. This makes the human-jump highy likely.

If you are going to be open minded about the hypotheses of man-made than you might as well be open to all the other ones with about the same amount of support data such as the hypothesis that it was caused by fairy dust.


point taken.

p.s. I would love to read more about this fairy dust theory you mentioned



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Very interesting to see how this topic has developed. I just wanted to add a few things about the HIV and SIV connection that I believe, have not been pointed out yet.

Primate Lentiviruses interact with cellular function in many of the same ways that Human Lentiviruses do. In fact, recent research shows that Chimpanzee SIV can infect humans in much the same way it does in monkeys. SIV has been observed to attach to both Human CD4+ receptors and its own chemokine co-receptor called CCR-5; one of which is present in primate Lymphatic cells as well (CD4+). This means that both cellular receptors are present in Humans but not Chimpanzees, and that they are interchangeable. However, the reason that most species of monkeys do not display the adverse effects from infection with SIV or HIV is because most of the viral isolates are restricted just before the process of Reverse Transcriptase, thus prohibiting a longstanding infection in primates. In other words, it has been observed recently that a virus with SIV RNA inside an envelope of HIV-1 can effectively infect monkeys, but a virus with HIV RNA and an envelope of HIV-1 cannot. What we have learned from this is that when the virus evolves in a new host it also evolves to the point where it is host specific. That is, it contains some aspects of the original virus, but evolves to suit it's host.

Something even more interesting than this is shown when we draw conparisons between HIV-1 and HIV-2. Essentially, both are viruses in the Genus of Lentiviruses (Family of Retroviruses) that infect humans, but they do have very slight differences. SIV and HIV-2 are almost identical in the structure of their genomes and display many of the same characteristics that are lacking when comparing SIV to HIV-1. For instance, monkeys infected with HIV rarely display adverse side effects from the virus and can live a number of years post-infection. The same can be said for Humans infected with HIV-2 as it rarely leads to the onset of AIDS, and HIV-2 has been in the human population much longer than it's HIV-1 counterpart. Here we have a less virulent "version" of the typical HIV virus, that is closely related to known SIV genomes, and that has been in the human population longer than HIV-1. With this information I fully believe that SIV was the forbearer of HIV-2, which evolved much later into HIV-1.

The reason I believe this so strongly is because Lentiviruses are primarily composed of nucelic acid in the form of +mRNA. RNA based viruses replicate much faster than their DNA based counterparts and once viral RNA undergoes Reverse Transcriptase in the Cytoplasm they are fully integrated into the hosts cellular genome. Thus, during this process the virus is actually using your own cells DNA to replicate itself, and after this mutation takes place it bears viral RNA and cellular DNA at budding. This mutation (or evolution if you will) rate is much higher than almost any other known virus, and these drastic changes can occur very fast...meaning the virus has the capability to zoonotically jump species and adapt to that new species at an alarming rate.

Here is an article published by The Journal of American Societies for Experimental Biology analyzing the pol (polymerase) genomic region and how these sequences can be used to determine the presence of HIV in humans back to the 1920's and 1930's:

See pages 9 and 10 for some conclusions on the evidence presented in the article.
FASEBJ Journal

I hope this helps everyone better understand how HIV can be broken down between HIV-1 and HIV-2, and their relationships with SIV.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Soulshock
 


I personally believe that HIV was an experiment that was suppose to control the population, and was purposely spead in Africa/India area. Of course, I don't have any proof of this, but it is what I think. I mean, every scientist is fretting about how our water supply of fresh and salt water is lowering and in X years it's all going to be gone. Why wouldn't someone create a virus to destroy a large part of the population, just so they could live for X amount more years. To me, it just makes sense that it was created for the purpose of killing a large amout of people.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Another thread that has gone off course of the OP's question.
www.mikehagan.com...
As for a cure look here.
www.freepatentsonline.com...
I'm not saying it's the answer,just a little more info.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

You are misinterpreting my last post. Far from being a Calvinist, I am not even religious. Divine omniscience and predestination are fairytales to me.

What I was attempting to show was that, to most American Christians, the HIV baby example, far from disproving the assertion that AIDS is a punishment from God, actually supports their claim of divine omniscience. See, they will tell you, God knew these babies were evil, irredeemably steeped in original sin, so in His Divine Mercy He has struck them down before they could spread their Satanic contamination.

Psychopathological, I know. But that's religion.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Clinging hopelessly to hope


Originally posted by scientist
As far as I can tell from every single official resource, there has not yet been a PROVEN, definitive source. Just theories.

And that is all you will ever get from scientific study and testing. Science is not a way of proving theories true; it is a way of falsifying them.

There is no way on earth to prove a theory definitively true. The best you can get is a theory that survives repeated tests without falsification.

The natural provenance/cross-species transmission model is such a theory. Yes, there's a fragment of a sliver of a possibility that your conspiracy theory might yet be right, but that fragment is just a statistical artifact, not a real probability.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
To dissertate on a previous scientific post which asserts that HIV1, the human AIDS virus, derived from HIV2 rather than directly from SIV, it has usually been stated that among strains of SIV (lentiviruses occur in many animal species, but the pertinent species variant for the purposes of this post is SIV, the simian immune virus), the strain referred to as SIVcpz, which is the strain found in chimpanzees, "has the closest resemblance to HIV1," or human AIDS virus. To determine how chimpanzee SIV crossed species from chimps to humans I submit would be more clearly elucidated epidemiologically than in a virology lab. Find out more about what went on in the 1970s involving subcultural epidemiological factorsespecially in Haiti, Africa, San Francisco, and the like. This would include correlating native dietary practices such as eating monkey meat, unusual practices like voodoo and zombieism, and the like. Right now theories are thriving that have little rationale backing them up, such Hooper's "Congolese polio vaccine trials/AIDS' early spread in the Congo," and the like. I still believe that there had long existed a benign native form of HIV infection based on natives' neonatal/passive immunity, early-life-acquired immunity, and then in the 1970s non immune Americans vacationing in Haiti superimposed drastic new trasmission-route/non-immune human vector factors upon the benign HIV scenario leading to the AIDS epidemic.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
i just want to let you all watch this video


www.youtube.com...





More than 200 million Americans are suffering from some sort of disease or medical condition at a cost of two trillion dollars per year. The conventional medical model shows no hope in curing, and little hope of improving, most of these medical problems. In fact, conventional pharmaceutical approaches to curing disease very often exacerbate the very problems they are supposed to cure, or create other new medical problems that were not there previously.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmaster

That's real mature of you dude.


I find it really hard to accept a reprisal especially when someone is judging me about maturity and ends his statement with the word "dude" lol



There not out to get us dude,they already did and continue to do so..

If they continue to do so, then how can you say they're still not out to get you?


I'm not this guy you are assuming

Who do you assume that is?



I am a new memeber of Haitian descent....and if thats irelavant to you so be it


Yes,, that would be irrelevant and is one of the reasons I didn't ask.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vampyr_Lover
To me, it just makes sense that it was created for the purpose of killing a large amout of people.


It's WHY it makes sense to you that doesn't make sense



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

You are misinterpreting my last post. Far from being a Calvinist, I am not even religious. Divine omniscience and predestination are fairytales to me.

What I was attempting to show was that, to most American Christians, the HIV baby example, far from disproving the assertion that AIDS is a punishment from God, actually supports their claim of divine omniscience. See, they will tell you, God knew these babies were evil, irredeemably steeped in original sin, so in His Divine Mercy He has struck them down before they could spread their Satanic contamination.

Psychopathological, I know. But that's religion.




Ain't Christianity pal, I can tell you that and I resent the false representation. Your assertion that GOD's omniscience causes a predestined end to these children is a crock. GOD is omnipresent not governed by time so because he sees the choices WE make before WE do has nothing to do with the reason WE made them. In life we all become the sum total of the choices we have made and sometimes that means we become our own compromise.

I don't think I have ever heard a Christian ever second guessing GOD the way you say they do moreover the idea that MOST American Christians would say GOD knew these baby's were evil so he struck them down sounds more like a problem YOU have with Christians then they have with HIV Babies.



He has struck them down before they could spread their Satanic contamination. Psychopathological, I know. But that's religion.


If they die from aids it isn't GOD that struck them down, it was AIDS. It is unfortunate as is the many reasons we die but to suggest that these baby's having HIV are any different then anyone born with original sin is not biblical. As a matter of fact NOTHING you have said is an accurate discription of the Christian GOD or most American Christians. Look I don't care what your beef is with religion and I can agree that Religion preys on people but you aren't speaking on behalf of Christians nor would any of us want you to so quit putting words in the mouths of MOST American Christians.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Soulshock
 


I remember Radio Moscow back in 1983 or 1984 said regularly that Aids was created by the CIA as a Biological Weapon.




top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join