It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Muundoggie
I can only add one thing to this discussion.
In the early '70s I lived in Oakland Ca and made numerous trips to Berkeley CA on the U.C. campus. On one of these trips I came across a flyer that was for a lecture/talk by a professor/scientist which stated he helped develop the AIDS "bug." I'm using the word bug for lack of a better one. I believe I still have this flyer somewhere in my crap in a storage locker. Wish I could remember his name as this was a serious lecture that was being given at that time.
Originally posted by mmiichael
This is very typical of conspiracy theorists scouring through old records to find something they can point to that gives the impression there is an AIDS virus the US developed ot exterminate people in large numbers.
As already pointed out, there is no such thing as an AIDS virus per se, and the condition has existed for decades, maybe always, but was only recognized as such fairly recently.
A survey was done a few years ago showing a significant proportion of American blacks believe AIDS was created in US labs.
This is one of the more disgusting areas of conspiracy theories that intorduces totally baseless information into the system alarming people unnecessarily with malign intentions.
Originally posted by Harassment101
... if you look at what they were willing to do with the Syphilis experiment this is not that far a strech. The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.
They purposly gave Syphillis to dozens of black men, then refused to cure them, let them infect their wives, girlfriends and others, the experiment went all the way up to the top. Many knew about it, and for 50 years most did nothing. So this is not that far off to believe that the HIV virus was created in the lab. Look at how this virus acts, very different than others in many regards.
It's even possible they used some of the knowledge from the dead men to create a virus that was more lethal to some people more than others.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by squiz
Rather than fake, I'd be more inclined to think the video contains some creative editing. Even if it does not there is nothing in it which alludes to the intentional creation of HIV. The topic of the video is the accidental introduction of HIV via live polio vaccine, a theory not well supported.
HIV-1 sequences were analyzed to estimate the timing of the ancestral sequence of the main group of HIV-1, the strains responsible for the AIDS pandemic. Using parallel supercomputers and assuming a constant rate of evolution, we applied maximum-likelihood phylogenetic methods to unprecedented amounts of data for this calculation. We validated our approach by correctly estimating the timing of two historically documented points. Using a comprehensive full-length envelope sequence alignment, we estimated the date of the last common ancestor of the main group of HIV-1 to be 1931 (1915-41). Analysis of a gag gene alignment, subregions of envelope including additional sequences, and a method that relaxed the assumption of a strict molecular clock also supported these results.
Originally posted by Phage
The monkeys used to create polio vaccine in the early 80's were infected with SV40. They were not infected with HIV.
Regarding the 1931 estimated date of HIV’s origin advanced by Korber et al.7 (i.e., “somewhere between 1910 and 1950”), a critical examination of these authors’ methods reveals problems. Largely speculative due to their use of a confounding-factor-liable computer model, Korber and colleagues noted their limitations. They stated their finding(s) regarding the 1931 genetic projection, that precludes various vaccine-induced pandemic theories, might be wrong if viral recombination(s) had occurred. They most certainly did in the evolutionary process of SIV to HIV according to most scientists.....
.....In summary, the determinations reached by Korber et al.,7 and Ho et al.,9 of possible dates for the origin of HIV-1, 1931 and 1959 respectively, have been adequately clarified elsewhere.10 “The authors themselves acknowledge, the super-computer-based study cannot tell whether this hypothetical 1930 virus was in humans or animals and so do not show when zoonosis occurred."
Myers et al. further qualified: “If PIV [primate immunodeficiency virus] was in humans in the first half of the 20th century, it may be estimated, given the assumptions of the look-back analysis, that the ancestral HIV-1 group M virus arose at 1930 plus or minus 20 years.” Conversely, if PIV was not in humans in the first half of the 20th century, then the Korber et al analysis holds little, if any, value in-so-far-as determining a date or origin of the HIVs and AIDS.
"Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our reletive freedom from infectious disease." Dr D.M. Macarthur, Congressional Subcommitee,1969
The first viruses and retroviruses used for biological weapons research passed through the NCI. This chapter reviews the massive chemical and biological war research campaign centered in Frederick (Fort Detrick), Maryland, and chronicles the viral research that was ongoing here and in surrounding labs. A premier lab, specifically researching, developing, and testing immune system destroying viruses, was the Cell Tumor Biology Laboratory at the NCI. This was headed by Dr. Robert Gallo--the co-discoverer of the AIDS virus. The chapter ends by asking, "When did Gallo discover HIV? In 1984, as reported, or in 1970?"
But again, the claim of the OP is that HIV was intentionally created. This video is irrelevant to that claim.
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) sequences that pre-date the recognition of AIDS are critical to defining the time of origin and the timescale of virus evolution. A viral sequence from 1959 (ZR59) is the oldest known HIV-1 infection. Other historically documented sequences, important calibration points to convert evolutionary distance into time, are lacking, however; ZR59 is the only one sampled before 1976. Here we report the amplification and characterization of viral sequences from a Bouin's-fixed paraffin-embedded lymph node biopsy specimen obtained in 1960 from an adult female in Léopoldville, Belgian Congo (now Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)), and we use them to conduct the first comparative evolutionary genetic study of early pre-AIDS epidemic HIV-1 group M viruses. Phylogenetic analyses position this viral sequence (DRC60) closest to the ancestral node of subtype A (excluding A2). Relaxed molecular clock analyses incorporating DRC60 and ZR59 date the most recent common ancestor of the M group to near the beginning of the twentieth century. The sizeable genetic distance between DRC60 and ZR59 directly demonstrates that diversification of HIV-1 in west-central Africa occurred long before the recognized AIDS pandemic. The recovery of viral gene sequences from decades-old paraffin-embedded tissues opens the door to a detailed palaeovirological investigation of the evolutionary history of HIV-1 that is not accessible by other methods.
"The interpretation that HIV-1 was spreading among humans for 60-80 years before AIDS was first recognized should not be surprising. If the epidemic grew roughly exponentially from only one or a few infected individuals around 1910 to the more than 55 million estimated to have been infected by 2007, there were probably only a few thousand HIV-infected individuals by 1960, all in central Africa. Given the diverse array of symptoms characteristic of AIDS, and the often-long asymptomatic period following infection, it is easy to imagine how the nascent epidemic went unrecognized.
I continue to believe that the crucial element that allowed the chimp virus, SIVcpz, to transfer to humans and to prosper in its new host was not the preparation or consumption of chimpanzee bushmeat. After all, such activities did not, to anyone's knowledge, result in any outbreaks of AIDS by 1959, despite Professor Sharp's unconvincing claim that thousands of Africans would have had the disease by then. As proposed above, it is entirely possible that one or more chimpanzees infected with a virus close to HIV-1 (such as chimps from south-eastern Cameroon) could have ended up at Lindi. I believe that two or more chimp SIVs were present in the tissue cultures that were used to create CHAT vaccine, and that the vaccine therefore contained both chimp SIVs and various recombinant strains created from them. (Geneticist Mikkel Schierup has pointed out that initial recombination between just two SIVs would have been sufficient to create all the viral subtypes and variants of HIV-1(M) seen today.) I further believe that an OPV administered orally via a high-pressure squirt from a syringe, as CHAT was, would have provided an effective (and completely novel) route of transfer for these viruses from chimpanzee to human.
Earliest AIDS Case Is Called Into Doubt
WHAT was believed to be the earliest known case of AIDS, dating to 1959, may not have been AIDS after all, new scientific evidence shows.
The case of David Carr, a 25-year-old man who died in 1959 in Manchester, England, has taken another perplexing twist.
The dating of the Manchester AIDS case had several nonscientific consequences. It appeared to give the lie to a theory being put about by the Soviet K.G.B. that H.I.V. had escaped from an American germ warfare laboratory. Its early date seemed to contradict a theory advanced in Rolling Stone that AIDS originated in the polio vaccines tested in Africa in the late 1950's. And the case could be cited as evidence that AIDS was abroad in the Western world well before the epidemic appeared among gay men in the United States.
. . .
"That is why we went after it so hard," said Dr. David Ho, who decided to analyze the virus sequence in further detail. Dr. Ho heads the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City and was a member of a panel that refuted the polio vaccine theory in 1992. He wrote to Dr. Corbitt in July 1992 to ask for samples of Mr. Carr's stored tissues, and later he asked Dr. Williams for more.
But to Dr. Ho's amazement, he could isolate H.I.V. from only one sample that the British researchers sent him, and the genetic map made of the virus's fingerprints differed so much from what he expected that he went on to do even more tests.
Most critically, the additional tests showed the tissues sent to Dr. Ho were from at least two people.
. . . . . . . .
"We wanted it to be true," Dr. Ho said, adding that he initially resisted Dr. Myers's skepticism. Valid findings would "mean that the virus had not changed much in 30 years, indicating the virus had been with us for centuries."
. . . . . . . .
Dr. Ho's only isolation of H.I.V. was from a kidney DNA sample that appears to have been contaminated by another clinical specimen. "Whether that is an accident or something else we have no way of saying," Dr. Ho said.
Originally posted by Phage
On one hand you seem to be saying that HIV was an accidental creation related to the Hepatitis B vaccine. But on the other hand you also seem to be backing up the OP's view that it was an intentional result of biological warfare research.
A biopsy from 1960 (used in the more recent study which I referenced earlier in the thread) and the sample from 1959 establish the existence of HIV well prior to the HB trials (and the bill touted in the OP). It also helps to validate and refine the results of the Korber study.
This is not a matter of "trust". It is a matter of evidence. There seems to be very good evidence that HIV has been around for at least 100 years.