It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:32 AM

Originally posted by BigDaveJr
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.

Yeah lol damn CIA using weapons that take at least a decade or more before they kill the enemy and even that depends on the enemy's sex or drug habits being of a particular bent before you can even say bulls-eye. Can't really say it's a precision weapon either, what with all the collateral damage as kills so indiscriminately every one else the initial target comes in contact with the same way. Yeah radio Moscow sure hit the nail on the head with that one. I bet the CIA was just biting there nails hoping no one would be listening to Radio Moscow. Not so much because Radio Moscow was right but because they knew many people were gullible enough to believe that propaganda.

That and the CIA was still trying to polish it's image for getting busted for creating chicken pox, herpes, acne, and male pattern baldness.

PS; you know,, it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't behind this "restless leg syndrome or "RLS"

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:26 AM
reply to post by Conspiriology

Ain't Christianity pal, I can tell you that and I resent the false representation.

I only wish you were right. However, you are wrong.

Read the philosophy of John Calvin; the original works are probably best, but the there are many descriptions, summations, criticisms and popularizations you could take up, too.

Then read a little in Christian history from the Reformation onward, so as to understand the place occupied by Calvinism in the history of Protestantism.

The beliefs you profess in the rest of your post, and in other posts on this thread, seem well-intentioned enough, but they are not Christianity. You may call them that if you choose, but they are really ideas of your own devising. I offer credit where credit is due.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax

sigh,, I think you missed my point or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am apprehensive because I know where this kind of discussion goes.

Back in 1981 I had met two Christians, Bert Mehnert, Rev. Donald Esty and myself started a small mission church in Suncity West AZ. We rented a lecture hall in the Valley National Bank ( I believe it is Chase now ) We the first year we had about 12 solid members. I was attending South Western Bible college and living with my folks out there when I met Esty and Mehnert. Esty was Pastor and we were elders and as the Church grew from twelve to 300 and up, we finally broke ground to build our new Church. I eventually out to Phoenix, changed course and colleges but always kept close ties with Pastor Esty. As the years went on I had heard my old friend, now Pastor Emeritus, had died. I attended the last memorial in his honor at the general assembly in Birmingham Al.

I never forgot the many years I attended that church and smile when I see my name at the top of it's charter members

The place sure has changed and most of those I spent my Sunday mornings with were much older then I and have since passed away.

It's kind of ironic that you tell me I need to catch up on my calvinism

hehe It's ironic because you are probably right,, It's been awhile but you don't build the first Covenent Presbyterian Church in SunCity West, without knowing John Calvin and his doctrine.

The fact is,, I have read VOLUMES on Calvin.

In here,, It's usually general discussions about GOD or Christians I see in but you getting into the Calvinator lol hehe

Ill also tell you that YOU are wrong.

Of course you are,, which pretty much what I said when you thought I was speaking about Calvin when I was speaking for MOST Christian Americans. If you care to argue your secular interpretation of the humanists hatchet job on Calvin,, we have got nothing to talk about.

Calvins explantion of predestination is nothing like you think and what you think is a common mistake by those who think they know so much about Calvinism that they feel quite comfortable suggesting how other calvinists would act, what they would say, even giving well intentioined advice to others that have undoubtedley have studied his life and work for many many years above and beyond your selective understanding of his teaching. What I mean by that is, you have what seems to be a predilection to finding the psychotic elements of this which understandably fit in with a secular lifestyle while offering a somewhat convoluted reason for an excuse to define it in just the way you have.

I would expect nothing less from an atheist, humanist non Christian

It's simple, God has before the foundations of the world, declared those whom he would save via the cross of Christ. This choice is founded completely on Gods mercy and does not take into consideration the works that man will or will not do. The will of man has no bearings on Gods election simply because no man wants salvation in the first place unless, of course, the holy Spirit of God enlightens him with this epiphany

Another words the elect are chosen predicated on the basis of God's foreknowledge of the way they will live their lives. So the choice as to whether a person will be saved or not is no longer in God's will, but it is in that person's choice about God's gift of grace--whether to accept it or reject it.

The proof of your election is your coming to Christ for salvation

While it is the belief of the Christian that God has ordained all things this way, some will argue that GOD is evil because he willed people to hell. God isn't setting the destination here either, on the contrary he leaves those to their own just end.

Gods will is one of righteousness while Calvin understood this explaining man's obssesion in trying to scientifically explain the ultimate cause of all things. That man should resist such endless exercises where there is only more questions then answers only more revision to update errors in old discoveries once considered truth but now are no longer in light of new data. Calvin asked that we stop seeking what does not exist, but is the best thing man has come up with. His warning is straight out of the Bible that If we do not resist the temptation to explain all things in existence in this way we will fail to see what does exist.

part to the objection of predestination I hear so much from those who don't truly understand it is how they use it to describe GOD as a psychopath or a what Kind of GOD would do this. You have even gone so far as to say I was making a GOD of my own devise. LOL I think thats cute. I also know where that comes from as much as I know where my description of the GOD of Abraham comes from. making God a tyrant is the idea that God has sentenced those who never had the chance to offend Gods law.

Calvin doesn't teach this in way shape or form but I sure see many say he does.

Calvin - "Let us…ask them, in turn, what they think God owes to man if he would judge him according to his own nature. All of us are vitiated by sin, we can only be odious to God…all whom the Lord predestines to death are by condition of nature subject to the judgment of death, of what injustice towards themselves may they complain"

If you want to find those same arguments here

Then perhaps we could entertain the prospects of you selling me on the virtues of atheism (aint gonna happen) or conversely,, my persuading you to believe in,, um,, how did you say??


fairy tales.

Again I just don't see that happening.

So already we are hitting common ground?

"Must be one them thar critical thankers" was my first postulate lol.
No,, Seriously,, I am impressed by your intelligence and I agree with that post where you said science is really about falsifying theories.
The point I was trying to make is simply one of courtesy because the fact is,, you DON'T represent the opinions of MOST Christians and you DO paint them in a rather ,, well,, lets just say,, one gets the impression we ain't your favorite people.

Just sensitive I guess and asking we keep a modicum of civility when it comes to making sweeping broad generalizations.

Ya know,, Major said something to me in another post about people saying GOD made HIV to punish gays and that it really offended him.

It offends me too,, just in different way. It's the REASONS being different that we could argue, and heh we HAVE. I find if I don't get baited into a comment or too he makes and he reads this post and ,, I dunno,, says what an idiot etc. As long as I'm not saying ALL Atheists say this or that, etc.

They aren't here to defend themselves but I am sure he would defend them and I wouldn't blame him.

I do the same thing for my Christian brothers and sisters you claim will tell someone this or that too.

Bottom line is,, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY WOULD SAY OR WHAT YOU THINK MOST WOULD SAY moreover I would bet I have known many more then you have and even I have not come close to knowing MOST.

let alone knowing what most think or say

Hope that helps in clarifying

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Conspiriology]

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by michaelanteski
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...the strain referred to as SIVcpz, which is the strain found in chimpanzees

Good point, and I think some clarification is in order here. After looking over my previous post I see a couple of things which I should have stated more clearly. HIV-1 and HIV-2 are decended from a common ancestor, but are not directly related to each other as they evolved from two seperate lentiviruses. SIVcpz, which is found in Chimapanzee subspecies Pan Troglodytes Troglodytes and Pan Troglodytes Schweinfurthii, is the most common ancestor of HIV-1 Group M. HIV-2, on the other hand, finds it's common ancestor in SIVsm^5 derived from Cerocebus Atys monkeys, and shares more characteristics with SIV than does HIV-1 as pointed out in my previous post.

The likelihood that SIV has jumped into the human population on several occasions throughout its evolution can be supported by several factors:

1. Being that many parts of Africa are still rural communities that have little to no contact with the outside world lend some veracity to this theory. More than likely the SIV to HIV evolution did not cause a major epidemic as we see today because of this isolation, that is, it would have been contained in these rural communites. Recent urbanization in Africa post 1970's and 1980's could have been a primary reason why HIV has become the global pandemic we see today. British and French colonialism that brought Africans from rural communities into European cities for education and could have released the virus into the urban population.

2. The phylogenesis of HIV is a constantly evolving dynamic. To understand this we can look at the divergence in HIV Group M (this being the most common group in the Human population), where back in the 1980's genetic divergence was only around 9%, it has now grown to over 15%. This essentially means that variations in Group M are occuring frequently and point to a high rate of viral evolution.

3. The rapid evolutionary diversity of HIV and SIV genes can point to a common ancestor, and can be due to several factors. Reverse Transcriptase is not a perfect process and in the case of HIV it has been observed to make errors in the genome of around .2% in the replication phase, and further errors can occur when DNA is transcribed into RNA Polymerase II. In other words, with this one example we can see that HIV evolves each and every time it enters and exits a cell. It now becomes clear that its own replication process can show how HIV could have evolved from Chimpanzee SIV.

There are many theories on how HIV has spread globally, but some things remain certain. For one, SIV and HIV genomes are too closely related for it to be a coincidence. Secondly, they both evolved in Africa originally, and in the same general area as in the previously described rural communities. Thirdly, the extreme rate of evolution, replication, and divergence from one genome to the next point to a common ancestor in SIV.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:11 PM
Jazz,, I only have one question for you,,

do you think we are getting anywhere with this? Is a cure in the not too distant future or is this thing going to be like cancer. Seems to me we are falling behind in this area of medicine. What I mean is, I hear TB is making a comeback, polio once thought to be vanquished and then this spike in autism I keep hearing about. They seem to be coming back with a vengeance too. Ya know for as long as I can remember we have been fighting Muscular Dystrophy, AIDS, a variety of cancers and each year they say we are getting closer to a cure.

It sure would be reassuring to hear that something or one of these we could have victory over.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:09 PM
Well Conspiriology the sad fact is that a "cure" or "vaccine" in the near future is not looking too likely at this point. There are a number of different factors which contribute to the overall problem of developing an effective vaccine.

For one, because viruses (including HIV of course) are not living organisms they pose an entirely different threat than any known infectious agent. The most basic virions are usually composed of nucleic acid in the form of DNA or RNA that is enclosed in a capsid based of protein, and some form of receptors that are usually based on Glycoproteins. In other words, viruses do not display characteristics of what we commonly see in living organisms. If you want a better description of why this is please see my posts in this thread where I give an extensive "one over" on this subject:

Another problem lies in some of the research areas I have described in this thread, particularly when it comes the mutation and evolutionary rates of HIV. Currently, medical research has not provided humanity with a "cure" for any known virus. We do have vaccines for certain strains of viral infections such as Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Influenza, etc., but vaccines are not "cures". Vaccines are composed of one of several things:

1. Live attenuated organisms that act to disable the virulent nature of themselves or the virus.

2. Inactivated toxins called Toxoids that act to stop the spread of toxic chemicals released by microorganisms.

3. Deadened and/or less virulent forms of a particular virus.

4. Synthetically grown viruses that are not able to cause infection.

As you can see, vaccines are really nothing more than boosters for the immune system that let your own body fight off the infection with a little help. Typically when a patient is administered a vaccine they are given it to help ward off one strain of a particular virus...this is why some people have to get several Influenza vaccinations throughout their lives. It becomes particularly difficult when we look at the rate of HIV replication, as their are numerous strains of HIV within the person, which would require many vaccines to be administered to cover them all. In fact there is commonly around 900,000,000,000+ strains of HIV within a single infected human.

If you want my professional opinion on the issue I would only say that there is hope for an effective vaccine being discovered one day, but sadly that day is not going to be anytime soon. I believe their are currently around 17 or 18 HIV-1 vaccine trials being conducted right now and the majority of those are only in Phase 1 research and trials; many, if not all, of which will prove ineffective. I tend to take a more conservative approach when it comes to medical research with vaccines, and many Virologists would probably say a vaccine is at least 20 years away, but I would say a vaccine is more like 40+ years away.

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Jazzerman]

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:16 AM
Off topic, but I'll keep it short

Originally posted by Conspiriology
It's been awhile but you don't build the first Covenent Presbyterian Church in SunCity West, without knowing John Calvin and his doctrine. The fact is, I have read VOLUMES on Calvin.

Excellent! So I'm talking to an expert here. That's good, because it means those who accept the doctrine you represent can't plead the excuse of misrepresentation by an inexpert defender.

And so to Exhibit A:

God has before the foundations of the world, declared those whom he would save via the cross of Christ. This choice is founded completely on Gods mercy and does not take into consideration the works that man will or will not do.

Followed by Exhibit B:

The elect are chosen predicated on the basis of God's foreknowledge of the way they will live their lives.

You contradict yourself, I fear. As did John Calvin in precisely the same way.

And if this were not enough...

The choice as to whether a person will be saved or not is no longer in God's will.

Is this because God is not omnipotent, because He lacks mercy, or because he is a self-contradictory fiction?

How can an omnipotent entity possibly be good... or evil?

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:25 AM
To dissertate again on a point made by Jazzerm., it could be noted that African urbanization does not extend as much in the region of the Congo as other parts of the subSaharan region. In the theory I have posted about, concerning whether the poliovaccine trials in the 1950s could have been what led to the AIDS epidemic (as contended in Edward Hooper's book "The River" which has gotten widespread publicity in the media) his main point is that AIDS spread quickly and early-on so it looked to him like the earlier poliovaccine trials was the cause of the present AIDS epidemic. The epidemiologic question then is not how much urbanization has occurred throughout Africa, but more pointedly what went on in the Congo area (and, I would submit, what contacts there were from Haiti to the "darkest Africa" Congo area in the late 1970s when the epidemic began.) Again I have to believe this would be an epidemiologic question and virological studies won't elucidate it. Inasmuch as this post is about whether HIV is "a conspiracy" I think this is more the area to focus on although it's interesting to have the latest virological ideas.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:21 AM
While this Thread's title is "HIV Conspiracy?" there have occurred digressions along the lines of "Theoretical questions involving HIV disease." -I might submit a new one along those lines myself. -I am a retired physician, but around 1990 I was working where I got to follow in the neighborhood of 150 AIDS patients, many severe. They were all substance abusers. I never saw a single case of Kaposi's sarcoma over the two years I worked there (Kaposi's sarcoma is a cancer involving blood vessels, in which patients develop unsightly purple blotches over the body.) Yet kaposi's disease is common among homosexuals who have AIDS. -Why this differential? I have yet to see a good theoretic model to explain this. I think such a model is possible, involving the HIV 1 virus, immunological dysfunction, the male prostate gland, and the role of prostatic blood vessels as filters for HIV virus that have crossed the tissue membrane barrier (without getting too graphic about sexual practices.)

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:50 AM
Sorry to bump the thread. And double sorry, because even though I have thoughts on this matter (in fact I was involved in a similar discussion not too long ago), I think this issue had been proved to be fake (I mean, the "HIV doesn't exist" or the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" thing) so I'm not here to respond to this.

But honestly I felt insulted yet again by the words of that religious man called chickeneater, and (me being gay) I feel the need to say a couple of things.

"it's God's way of signalling His disapproval of this behaviour"

I will never stop to find it amazing how a person can apparently know what a ghost feels. Sure, you'll mention the bible. Did you know that the bible is the most manipulated book in the history? Did you know that the bible has so many metaphors that you can read one thing while in fact is saying something completely different? Did you know that you can't understand what the bible says unless you place yourself in the historical and linguistic context it was written on? And most importantly, did you know that the bible never actually condemns homosexuality? Seriously, you should investigate this matter. There are tons of sites, books and documentaries that can explain it to you, Google is your best friend.

Also, regarding of what you say a couple of words later, you should know that homosexuality is NOT a choice. I never choose to be like this, I just found once I enter puberty that a naked woman didn't affected my at all, while a man's body made my hormones go crazy. Is not a choice, is simply something you feel and can't change. The only people that believe this is a choice is the same people that many decades ago performed all kinds of cruel experiments on homosexual people which led to nothing except castrations, deaths, and, on the best case scenario, mandatory chastity.

"being ignorant (if I am indeed so) is not illegal isn't it?"

No, and hitting your head against a wall on purpose isn't illegal either, but you shouldn't expect people applaud or even respect you.

"I used to be an atheist, but then again, I really hate being a pragmatist"

That's not even a reason for you to judge or even accept a religion. You could be agnostic, as I am, and this option has a cool thing: you don't feel the need to condemn people to hell just because you don't like them. From my point of view, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if there is really a higher power, our simple minds couldn't begin to understand it, and that ultimately noone has the right answer to anything regarding how YOU should live your life. Which takes me to the next point:

"And God I believe is full of love, but he can frown and disagrees with what we do, and send a nudge our ways to point us to the right directions."

What you are saying has absolutely no sense at all, and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. God hurts because he loves very much? Every life is sacred yet he doesn't mind killing millions of people to "point us the right way"? This is absurd. People like you honestly gives me a stomach ache. Once I met a person that told me to my face that Katrina was sent by god because there were many sins in New Orleans. This was coming from a friend's mother, and since I didn't want to be rude in her own house, I just leaved very quietly.

But I will never understand what gives you people the right to condemn other people and to say that big cathastrophies that killed thousands or millions were send by "god" because he loves us without your face tearing apart.

The only thing I have to say is this: it's fine by me if you need to have a book that tells you what's right and what's wrong (or at least what you think it says), it's fine by me if you want to believe in whatever you call god and feel the need to think about it everyday. What's not fine is that you use these disorted visions to judge others. If you really believe in god, let he be the judge.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Radiobuzz]

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 03:42 AM

To get the story in one article read [2003] Depopulation and HIV by Jon Rappoport "My book instead proved that HIV - wherever it came from - was a harmless retrovirus that was being used as a cover story to explain/conceal an emerging depopulation operation in the Third World. HIV was also a cover for other agendas outside the Third World. As long as AIDS is the target of WHO/UN "humanitarian" efforts, the actual causes - which are easily reversible - of death in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are allowed to remain and fester and expand."

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:40 PM

He just answered a simple question bro, and you shoot him down. No wonder why you have -346 ats points.

posted on Oct, 26 2007 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Kacen

Originally posted by Xtrozero
We didn't even have cars back then!

[edit on 9/7/2007 by Kacen]

This is why they used the aliens to fly them around back then

posted on Oct, 27 2007 @ 03:30 AM
Removed unnecessary post. Forgot I'd read the thread before.

Sorry lah.

[edit on 27-10-2007 by Astyanax]

posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 07:08 AM
You may want to examine Dr Becks work with HIV

Check out this page of alternative medicinal treatments

He claimed and the patent backs it to some extent that by blood electrofication you can kill all viral pathogens in the body (including HIV).

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:48 PM
A quick google search will bring up many theories as to how HIV came about. The general belief being that HIV crossed species from Primate to Human as a result of ingestion, some believe by an orally administered polio vaccine, others by a result of people preparing and eating primate meat infected with SIV, considered HIVs cousin so to speak.

It is generally agreed that HIV is a mutated form of SIV, and that SIV came from primates. The real question is how it got from primate to human and was it deliberate or by accident?

I have done a fair bit of research on this over the past 2 weeks, I do not purport to be an expert in the field, and many questions I have remain without answer. My intention of writing this is to find answers to those unanswered questions by scrutiny and hypothesis.

I am a firm believer that there is truth in every lie, in the perspective that the teller believes what they are saying to be the truth based on their perception.

Lets consider every theory to be a lie, based on part truth, and that is where this theory comes to pass.

The oral polio vaccine. I have not read the book “The River”, maybe I should, I am not a big reader and generally favour television as a medium. I also prefer to look at the facts and come to conclusions that way. Dr Kaprowski who in the Belgium Congo developed his CHAT vaccine is thought to have contributed to the onset of HIV. It is theorized that DK used Chimp kidneys infected with SIV to grow the live vaccine. This oral vaccine was administered to a million people or more and the virus “species hopped”. Some 100 chimps or so were used at the facility, their kidneys being removed and it is documented that chimp kidneys were excellent, better than rhesus monkey kidneys to grow this oral vaccine.

A vile of the vaccine was tested and found to be negative of HIV and SIV, a cover up? I do not think so. A cover up would in my mind be better if this vile had come back positive, if it had have come back positive then HIV would have been attributed to this vaccine and all other theories would have gone to the wall. In fact, if you believe that there is a massive cover up, by the government, or indeed the pharmaceuticals or both, then with that kind of sway, surely they would be able to contaminate this sample and shift focus from themselves to DK.

So although not conclusive, I would, given the facts, and also the ability to transfer orally administered SIV and it become HIV through this vaccine and then spread and multiply in the time, unlikely.

This raises several questions, what was DK doing with so many Chimp kidneys if not growing CHAT vaccine, and why did the Government and or the PCs not cover this up by contaminating the vaccine?

Suppose this, through his attempts to create a vaccine, DK discovered the SIV virus. Why would DK not have grown CHAT in chimp kidney cells? They were better, yet to listen to DK he adamantly denies ever having done such a practice.

So lets assume that through routine testing, of one or a couple of chimps produced great results, however there was a problem, there was something else besides CHAT in the Petri dish.

I do not believe DK, even in a race would knowingly put a population at risk in this manner. I think he would have been excited by his discovery and interested in studying it further. This would justify the 100 or so chimps that were brought to the lab for testing. At this moment I do not know what they were used for, if not for growing CHAT as denied by DK then what were they being used for? Were they being used to grow SIV?

DK would have moved in certain circles that in the current political climate would have made him aware of the USAs desire to develop Biological weapons. It is possible that such a virus in DKs eyes would have had the potential to be of great use.

If DK were to have made the USA aware of this discovery and the USA had put this to use, be it the government or the PCs then that would ex

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 05:50 AM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

explain why there was no cover up of contaminating the vile of CHAT found recently as DKs upset at his name being muddied might very well reveal he passed the virus he found to either the government or a PC.

So, to sum up so far. DK was doing research on chimp kidneys, for what, I don´t know at this moment. The vaccine is clean. What happened next?

Enter Litton Bionetics and Dr Gallow. Gallow was doing experiments on Reverse Transcriptase that were published in December 1970, 6 months after Baltimore independently confirmed reverse transcriptase. It had been discovered just prior by Howard Temin. So in six months, Dr Gallow had already got up to speed and published a paper on results of reverse transcriptase.

Dr Gallow who worked for Litton Bionetics, named 6th largest bio weapons contractor for the USA government, would have indeed had everything at his disposal to do such tests, especially on something with such potential in weaponry. Is it possible that Dr Gallow had been doing work prior to the recorded discovery of Reverse Transcriptase on the said function? It is not such a stretch to imagine that governments would keep their research out of the public sector due to the cold war.

Just a quick note on technology, the tv in your front room, its top of the range, you have just bought in from your local electrical store. It is already 15 years out of date. Top of the range is affordable technology. Look at the space shuttle that took man to the moon, that technology is inferior now to what you could get in a shoe box, and a million times more expensive. So it is not a stretch once again to believe that research behind closed doors with an unlimited supply of money could very well be years ahead of what was going on in the public eyes. Moreso if DK handed his findings in the late 50´s to the government, PCs or highest bidder. Dr Gallow or his predicessors would have had 10 years head start on the rest of the world.

We know as of Dec 1970 Dr Gallow had already been fiddling with Reverse Transcriptase. The question is, what was done to SIV to make it HIV. This is probably the biggest clue to finding a cure.

There are people that categorically state, HIV could not be “made” in a lab. True, it could not simply have been invented from nothing, could it have been modified from SIV, certainly.

It was before Christmas that someone I worked with, over conversation suggested that HIV was a failed bio weapon, its failure being it did not work quick enough. He followed up by arguing a cure would not be released as long as people profited from its existence. More disturbingly he posed whether or not it was a failure. If HIV was developed as a weapon, to kill quickly en mass, indiscriminately, it failed. However if you look at who it is killing, predominantly blacks, homosexuals and IV drug users in the eyes of the people who pulled the trigger on this, maybe it is not such a failure.

I would like this to be an ongoing discussion. Any thoughts or evidence to the contrary of my thinking would be appreciated.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:41 AM
Anonymous: My model for origin of AIDS virus would have to include the factor of U.S. homosexuals frequenting Haitian resorts just prior to the onset of the epidemic in the late 1970s. Just study the epidemiology. I do not think the Poliovirus workers in the Congo in the 1950s had anything to do with the origin of the epidemic. -The fact that the Koprowski team has since been less than straighforward in their discussions of what subspecies of monkey were used or similar details to me only indicates that they don't have a full handle on how AIDs originated and want to defend themselves as best they can by being less than straightforward about all the details, since they lack the knowledge about other factors in AIDS' origin. -Jazzer's earlier theories about the "cultural isolation of the African groups where the original AIDS viral mutations occurred" being an important factor in this I also disagree with. I think there was a benign form of SIV/HIV in Africa for a very long time based on an original viral scenarion in which natives never developed the sickness from the virus because of immunity. Before birth, maternal antibodies protected the unborn babies. Right after birth, the babies would acquire active immunity very gradually from the mother's fingers. Later they would acquire full persistent immunity from eating monkey meat themselves. -Only when a new factor, sexual transmission among non-immune persons entered the picture did epidemic Aids begin.

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Soulshock
Do you believe the HIV was created as a population control? or just as some experiment?
Some people claim the medicine against HIV just makes the virus worse and spread and that the government has a medicine anti-hiv but does not give it to the public because of the income $$ that anti-hiv drugs generate.

What is your opinion?

Population control? If so, an idiot was at work. HIV does results in many things but it doesn't destroy the ability to pro-create. Most STDs (and other diseases) that we know have been around for a LONG time are more effective at that.

Yes, some HIV drugs are double edged. Some cause horrible side-effects. The same is true of the treatments of many diseases.

Re: a cure they won't release - this has been speculated on with many diseases/conditions (cancer, diabetes, etc...). If you cure people you don't have a market for your treatment drugs...
I would hope not but people do some CRAZY things for power and money. I would say it's not beyond possibility but I hope that is not the case at any rate.

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 06:12 PM
AIDS is highest in gays and blacks. And now moving fast through China.
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. You can't control a virus you create fully, but there is something called genetics and dna that all of you disbelievers forget.
A virus can be targeted to be more aggressive with specific dna.
It's not impossible at all.
And why? Why not? How can anyone possibly think that our govt or any govt would NOT do these things to our population? They did back then with so many documented experiments on record without our knowledge, why would this be so impossible now? Blind trust in the govt perhaps?
If a majority of the country is super religious, and they see gays, blacks and the chinese as enemies of nature, security and state, then I can EASILY see the higher upper echelons of our govt making this happen.
Polio vaccine? It entered into our groups by other means, but I feel strongly it was not an event of nature, and not just an accident. I feel it was certainly intentional to wipe the planet of some of us. An attempt, knowing that they can't get us all, and there will be unplanned victims as well.

Oh, and who's making money? Yes the Pharms, but so are the insurance companies, and so is the goverment as the Pharms and insurance companies lobby for their causes and give money to the govt to further their cause - which is to make money.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in