Colonial clue to the rise of HIV

I looked everywhere on ATS and could not see this breaking news linked yet...

news.bbc.co.uk...

The reason I thought this was of particular importance, is that I have a friend diagnosed with HIV. We have been discussing all the theories on HIV's origin and all the conspiracy theories for months now... he finally asked his therapists'/doctors' opinion this morning.

Now his therapist is a specialist in the field and only sees patients 1 day in the week, the other 4 he does research and also travels alot for conferences and is quoted in HIV research papers quite often etc. etc.

What surprised me, was my friends call to me this morning, telling me word for word what his therapist said.

So tonight im going through BBC news, and low and behold here's the article and it was almost duplicate to what his therapist said. Is he just quoting mainstream media?

Something about this article just doesn't ring right for me! Call it the timing, the content, the proposterous suggestions that HIV origins may have involved people eating monkeys infected with a similar virus between 1884 and 1924.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by corvin77


The feeling that isn't sitting right with you is your intuition saying don't buy into this. AIDS was manufactured and turned on the pulblic. Doctors of all sorts are practically forced to follow what the mainstream says in order to keep their credibility and their jobs. Such a shame really.

This was the first conspiricy i had ever heard of, and it rings alot of bells.

1 point for the tinfoil hatters!
----------------------------------------------

Considering that i was young when this was being discussed, about 6/7 and the internet was just around the corner, I might get a lot ofthings wrong, but this was the gossip on the playground:

The goverment was testing, out a cure for the common cold/something.. and they generated virus that would attach to the immune system, hopfully using this virus they could add something into the mix that would boost it, basically eradicating the cold??

They started testing it on monkeys, only for them to start dying, wtfudge??. A scientist got bit by a monkey/they were released into the wild.

Peoples at the monkeys,had sex and it began...

It was covered up by the goverments of the world, as it was a huge blunder.
-------------------------------------

Thats what i when i was a kid, i dont know if its right or not..

[edit on 1-10-2008 by monkeybus]

Here is another artcle mentioned in another thread

hosted.ap.org...

What I find interesting is that the so called scientist constantly uses words like "Would have" "could have" "might have" "probably"
Which probably (lol couldnt help myself) just makes this another theory, not provable fact!

Moral and lessons of this story

Africa stinks, it's a nasty continent

Stay the hell away from Monkies they stink too

i'll just refer to my post on the other thread about this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

seriously, everyone should view the "Strecker Memorandum", and come to their own conclusions about where they think AIDS came from!

even though John Lear isn't posting on this site anymore, his posts should never be forgotten...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

what's everyone think???

Originally posted by corvin77
So tonight im going through BBC news, and low and behold here's the article and it was almost duplicate to what his therapist said. Is he just quoting mainstream media?

Something about this article just doesn't ring right for me! Call it the timing, the content, the proposterous suggestions that HIV origins may have involved people eating monkeys infected with a similar virus between 1884 and 1924.

Any thoughts?

His therapist was more likely quoting the article in Nature, which is a very well-respected scientific publication:

Tissue sample suggests HIV has been infecting humans for a century

Also see this letter with the abstract, received by Nature in May.

Why is it so preposterous that people could have become infected with HIV by eating infected monkeys between 1884 and 1924?

Originally posted by americandingbat
Why is it so preposterous that people could have become infected with HIV by eating infected monkeys between 1884 and 1924?

because it's just hard to understand how they can get AIDS from monkeys, unless they ate them raw... you can't get HIV or AIDS from kissing someone - why should you get it by eating the cooked flesh from another species? ...MAYBE if they had a cut on their hand while cleaning the infected, bloody monkey carcass, then it might be possible...

...watch the Strecker Memorandum!

reply to post by adrenochrome


Fair enough. Though they might have eaten monkey meat raw. Or drank the blood -- blood is very high in nutrients.

Or it could have been spread by less socially acceptable means, as has been suggested elsewhere.

Or just by being bitten by a monkey, I suppose. Though that seems so ... boring

PS - is The Strecker Memorandum available in non-video format? Like a transcript or something? I have a hard time paying attention to video.

[edit on 10/2/08 by americandingbat]

I believe if this is indeed true. They could do a research project like csi and technically confirm this.

Personally, it sounds like a load of malarchi to me.

Originally posted by americandingbat
Fair enough. Though they might have eaten monkey meat raw. Or drank the blood -- blood is very high in nutrients.

Or it could have been spread by less socially acceptable means, as has been suggested elsewhere.

Butchering bush meat would be blood to skin contact, add an opens sore, or an accidental slice and it is blood to blood. They have been butchering primates and humans and consuming them for eons in Africa.

If they traced it to chimps specifically sexual transmission is highly unlikely, unless the chimps were dead at the time. Chimps have several times the strength of the human male and if a man tried to rape one he would most likely be dismembered.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by Sonya610]

Originally posted by americandingbat

His therapist was more likely quoting the article in Nature, which is a very well-respected scientific publication:

Tissue sample suggests HIV has been infecting humans for a century

Ok well firstly, the Nature makes no reference to the eating of monkeys.. but the BBC article did. Now my friend quoted his therapist & told me about the eating monkeys theory as it was made a (no indecency involved)-joke of by his therapist on that day! So his therapist was caught quoting BBC.

So not only is a specialist in the field caught quoting from BBC, but it also stands to question where BBC got the "Eating of monkeys" bit from as it is not even mentioned in Nature???

Originally posted by americandingbat
Why is it so preposterous that people could have become infected with HIV by eating infected monkeys between 1884 and 1924?

I'd like to link good ole wikipedia and quote as an answer on that one
en.wikipedia.org...

The monkey SIV strains do not infect humans and HIV-1 does not infect monkeys. ....due to different variants of the protein TRIM5α in humans and monkeys. Other proteins such as APOBEC3G/3F may also be important in restricting cross-species transmission.

Originally posted by americandingbat

Nature, which is a very well-respected scientific publication:

Tissue sample suggests HIV has been infecting humans for a century

To quote directly from this "well-respectable" source Nature:

....it may never be possible to pinpoint exactly how HIV crossed from chimpanzees into humans..

..the likely source of HIV-1 is chimpanzees living in southeast Cameroon, hundreds of kilometres from Kinshasa, and it is tempting to hypothesize that trade routes contributed to the virus's infiltration of the city. But even by 1960, HIV-1 had infected only a few thousand Africans

So Nature is basically saying it'd be impossible to prove how exactly SIV crossed over from Chimps to Humans causing HIV. And from two samples they could determine "Only a few 1000 africans infected" Hmmm?

If you ask me there are still major holes in this theory and like Nature confirms, it is a mere tempting hypothosis
(In simpler terms an assumption)



[edit on 10/3/2008 by corvin77]

Originally posted by corvin77
Now my friend quoted his therapist & told me about the eating monkeys theory as it was made a (no indecency involved)-joke of by his therapist on that day! So his therapist was caught quoting BBC.

So not only is a specialist in the field caught quoting from BBC, but it also stands to question where BBC got the "Eating of monkeys" bit from as it is not even mentioned in Nature???

Thanks, I knew I had seen that assertion somewhere! Sounds like you're right -- the therapist got caught out quoting the BBC

Originally posted by americandingbat
Why is it so preposterous that people could have become infected with HIV by eating infected monkeys between 1884 and 1924?

I acknowledge above that eating cooked monkey meat is an unlikely vector for transmission. I was focused more on the dates and not really thinking about the means. I think Sonya610 has pointed to the most likely vector: butchering infected meat.

As far as the evolution of SIV into HIV-1, I don't know enough about it to say anything. But viruses do evolve to attack new species.

So Nature is basically saying it'd be impossible to prove how exactly SIV crossed over from Chimps to Humans causing HIV. And from two samples they could determine "Only a few 1000 africans infected" Hmmm?

If you ask me there are still major holes in this theory and like Nature confirms, it is a mere tempting hypothosis
(In simpler terms an assumption)

Not an assumption; that implies that they assume it's true. A hypothesis: a possibility based on available evidence that generates predictions which can continue to be tested.

I'm not clear from that article where they got the figure that only a few thousand Africans were infected with HIV by about 1960, but I don't think it was from the two samples. The significance of the samples was that they were able to use models of DNA and RNA variation to find out how far back the divergence between the two HIV viruses had occurred, and it turned out to be earlier than they had expected.

There is a lot that's still not known about how HIV spread; no one researching it denies that. That doesn't make the research any less compelling, though.

because it's just hard to understand how they can get AIDS from monkeys, unless they ate them raw... you can't get HIV or AIDS from kissing someone - why should you get it by eating the cooked flesh from another species? ...MAYBE if they had a cut on their hand while cleaning the infected, bloody monkey carcass, then it might be possible...


Right, you can actually swallow blood with HIV or AIDS, as long as you don't have an open wound the virus can't survive the acids in your stomach. Also, it's a very weak virus outside of the body, meaning it can only survives for minutes in the air. Cooked, there's no chance of getting it. You'd basically have to have a cut and get fresh blood in it, or actually be having sex with the monkey and transfer bodily fluids. Then again you'd also have to forget that the physiology between a monkey (very vague term as it is) and a human, though are similar in some species of monkeys, are not identical. Basically, you couldn't really give a monkey a cold by kissing it, just the same as you're not going to breed and have human/monkey babies.

Originally posted by Thewayshemoves
because it's just hard to understand how they can get AIDS from monkeys, unless they ate them raw... you can't get HIV or AIDS from kissing someone - why should you get it by eating the cooked flesh from another species? ...MAYBE if they had a cut on their hand while cleaning the infected, bloody monkey carcass, then it might be possible...

 

Right, you can actually swallow blood with HIV or AIDS, as long as you don't have an open wound the virus can't survive the acids in your stomach. Also, it's a very weak virus outside of the body, meaning it can only survives for minutes in the air. Cooked, there's no chance of getting it. You'd basically have to have a cut and get fresh blood in it, or actually be having sex with the monkey and transfer bodily fluids. Then again you'd also have to forget that the physiology between a monkey (very vague term as it is) and a human, though are similar in some species of monkeys, are not identical. Basically, you couldn't really give a monkey a cold by kissing it, just the same as you're not going to breed and have human/monkey babies.

----
You mean like: Lip ring stretching.. face scarification, potential wounds from hunting the monkeys/apes, tendancies of tribes to drink the blood of kills in a ritualistic fashion, bleeding gums, stomach ulcer potentials etc. etc.. The whole stomach acid thing is true to an extant, but people catch HIV all the time through that route.

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Originally posted by Thewayshemoves
because it's just hard to understand how they can get AIDS from monkeys, unless they ate them raw... you can't get HIV or AIDS from kissing someone - why should you get it by eating the cooked flesh from another species? ...MAYBE if they had a cut on their hand while cleaning the infected, bloody monkey carcass, then it might be possible...

 

Right, you can actually swallow blood with HIV or AIDS, as long as you don't have an open wound the virus can't survive the acids in your stomach. Also, it's a very weak virus outside of the body, meaning it can only survives for minutes in the air. Cooked, there's no chance of getting it. You'd basically have to have a cut and get fresh blood in it, or actually be having sex with the monkey and transfer bodily fluids. Then again you'd also have to forget that the physiology between a monkey (very vague term as it is) and a human, though are similar in some species of monkeys, are not identical. Basically, you couldn't really give a monkey a cold by kissing it, just the same as you're not going to breed and have human/monkey babies.

----
You mean like: Lip ring stretching.. face scarification, potential wounds from hunting the monkeys/apes, tendancies of tribes to drink the blood of kills in a ritualistic fashion, bleeding gums, stomach ulcer potentials etc. etc.. The whole stomach acid thing is true to an extant, but people catch HIV all the time through that route.

I was more focusing on the fact that our physiologies probably wouldn't allow for that. I could be wrong, though.

Originally posted by corvin77

Originally posted by americandingbat
Why is it so preposterous that people could have become infected with HIV by eating infected monkeys between 1884 and 1924?

I'd like to link good ole wikipedia and quote as an answer on that one
en.wikipedia.org...

The monkey SIV strains do not infect humans and HIV-1 does not infect monkeys. ....due to different variants of the protein TRIM5α in humans and monkeys. Other proteins such as APOBEC3G/3F may also be important in restricting cross-species transmission.

Again I would like to bring this snippit to everyone's attention!! To date, it cannot be proven how monkey SIV strains infected Humans causing HIV!