AIDS - and how we have the cure.

Ok, not sure whether this has been posted before, but my friend recently gave me his opinion on AIDS. he says that AIDS was created by the american government (or some extremely high authority like that) to wipe out small 3rd world countries in order to get (basically steal) oil from their country. he said we have the cure (created when the virus was invented), but we are simply to greedy for resources to give a crap about where we get it and what we have to kill off in order to use it (or something along those lines). i thought his ideas were plausible - and probable considering the state of the earth now, after all the resources we've used up.

does anybody else have any thoughts on this? or information/ideas that support this theory?

I do not believe that they are distrubituing aids to get natural resorces (that is just a bonus). The main reason is to control the population to reduce the strain on the depleting world food/water suply. (I believe so anyways)

yeah as mentioned before my mate told me so i cant really remember what he said so it could be open to resources/population. come to think of it i do think he mentioned something about population control.

thanks for your input!

No Problem, I suggest trying to find some videos on youtube or google video I am at work or i would find 1 for you but it shouldnt be to hard for you to find and it will have all the additional info you want. Happy hunting.

Think about the countries where AIDs is most prevalent - like those of sub-Saharan Africa.

What resources do they have that might justify such actions? Why engage in such a long term population reduction strategy there?

Now, if the disease mainly affected the Persian Gulf countries, India and China, then you might have more of an argument.

Are you serious? Sub-saharan Africa has a huge amount of natural resources. Those resources currently aren't being used.

If you care to look up the information, in the mid-to-late 60s, there is a FOIA released document that shows someone in the Pentagon asking for $10 million to design a disease that has no known cures, and whose effects line up almost perfectly with AIDS. Look it up.

Source? I just tried to look it up and found nothing. I'm thinking you either misread the supposed document, the document doesn't exist, or you read a fake document. Please prove otherwise.

reply to post by Glukoza

---

there is a patent, see f-ex.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.newmediaexplorer.org...


i also suggest:

G oogle Video

someone found the link before me:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the question is whether one can prove anything over the internet, isn't it?

[edit on 22.4.2008 by Long Lance]

Not to be rude, Long Lance, but all your post contained was a patent for a supposed treatment (I could patent cat poo as a treatment, you don't have to show efficacy to get a patent), a man who says he found links to virus programs all the way back to the late 19th century (we didn't know viruses OR DNA existed or how they worked at the time, so I fail to see how this could be true), and a broken google video link.

I'm afaid I'll need more than that to conclusively state HIV was man-made. Any sources from reputable institutions or scientists? Any virologists coming out in defense of this theory? And actual science to back it up? HIV is actually a very simply virus, just two glycoproteins and a few genes, really. The reason it is so dangerous is that the virus lacks a solid proofreading enzyme, so it mutates rather quickly and few proteins are conserved across the strains, making a vaccine unlikely.

contradicting is all by itself, never rude.

i don't know how stringent patent standards are today, i'd just hope that they require some testing, no? otherwiese, what's the patent office good for anyway?

the issue with viral programmes is that you don't need to use direct genetic modification to isolate, understand and use bioweapons, including viruses. tainted food and seed is a no-brainer as is smallpox (19th century). less known agents could of course be bred using more conventional techniques, like the ones used in crops, so the *official* start of virology was

www.apsnet.org...

1898 AD. on a side note, stem cells do not require such knowledge either.


if someone spilled the beans on a serious subject, chances are the result might look like

www.geocities.com...

besides, being a scientiest does not automatically make you omniscient, spotting errors in your area of expertise, sure, actively looking for them outside of it - not likely.

f-ex. do you know how many physicists have verified general relativity for themselves? 2% i've heard. in biology and biochemistry, things won't be drastically different, will they?

the google link works just fine for me, i took extra care formatting the URL, because the ATS parser cut it up. the guy who's talking in the vid is named Boyd Graves, btw, so you might have better luck using a search engine.

PS: you should understand that all i wanted to do is post the information Chancealot probably used as a basis for his claim, i'm personally unsure what to believe in the case of AIDS anyway. there's a old link i've just dusted off,

www.progressiveconvergence.com... (.pdf)

it's longer than your average web article, but it does list an excerpt from an (alledged) army patent on a bioweapon.

i think famine, crime, poor education, minimal health care, ethnic violence, civil war and govt. corruption. Lets not leave out Multination explotation etc etc are prety much leaving aids in the dust in terms of killing of Africans. You really think Aids is needed for that.

The patent office researches only whether or not the application infringes on another current patent. They do not conduct any sort of efficacy testing, nor do they require you to provide such testing. The only time you have to provide proof your diea works is when you want to market it, and that goes to the FDA, not the patent office.



Let's stop there for a second. First, you are absolutely right, you do not need to understand genetics in order to reproduce and use a weaponized virus. However, your stance is that man *created* HIV. How would you modify the glycoprotein structure of a virus when you don't even know what a virus is? How would you force it to localize in specific leukocytes when you don't know those exist, either, or what their function is? It just seems a bit daft to me to suggest someone could have created a discrete and sophisticated biomolecular structure when they have neither the means to observe it nor the knowledge of its existence.



This is an example of using viruses that already exist in nature. Your argument is that someone created HIV.




Interesting note, that list supposedly ties those scientists to the Star Wars program, but in fact many had nothing to do with it. That list has floated around for years with little variation and little support beyond the list itself.




I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...I'm a geneticist by education and training, and I pointed out a major flaw in the "hiv was created by man" theory. I feel I'm qualified to do just that.



Source for the 2%? We had to verify it in my basic physics course in undergrad. Surely my 200+ member class would boost that number a bit. Also, anytime biologists perform experiments, they have to provide "proof of concept" that every basic tenet works in order to publish the work.

wasn't that during the late 60s into the 70s? i'm sure there are people who date HIV back into the 19th century, all i can tell is that the links i've read usually state that AIDS was the culmination of a prolonged effort, not that it took 80 years. most of these also state that HIV is only a facet of the disease, not the primary agent.



are you sure it wasn't Special Relativity? of course newspapers from yesteryear don't necessarily write the truth and don't link too wellover the internet either.

btw, secret programs remain secret because even people in th field don't automatically understand just from a few pieces of the puzzle.

There's one major flaw with your logic, Long Lance. You suggest that your research has led you to believe it was a "prolonged effort" of many scientists, all of whom were kept in the dark because they only had a "small piece of the puzzle". This wouldn't work for a very simple reason: humans cannot keep secrets. By nature, people talk. The more people you have involved in a conspiracy, whether they know they are involved in it or not in the case of your supposed scientists, the more likely it is someone will talk.

my 'research' on AIDS' origins has been put on hold a long time ago, because i have no way of verifying it either way. there are a few interesting aspects, but i find myself unable to embrace any of these clear-cut, 'definitive' verdicts, no matter what.

i tried to give links to Chancealot's post, that is all i even stated that




that flaw of logic is inherent to any conspiracy theory, isn't it? history, is riddled with consipracies from assassinations of entire (royal) families during feudal times to Hitler's and Stalin's clandestine partition of Poland and they've had considerable impact on history. why should today be any different? even if people did reveal secrets and actually had their voices heard, would we believe them? i'm not sure that i would, which is why i try to be careful when dismissing absurd claims.

[edit on 26.4.2008 by Long Lance]