House bill 15090 showing that the US Government asked for the aids virus to be made!

Based on my research at this time, House Bill 15090 is a HOAX.

Unless anyone can present a GPO documentation number or Lexis-Nexis/Westlaw document ID for this legislation, I will continue to vehemently insist that it does not exist.

I have previously posted the only known HR or HB during the time period w/ the number "15090" and it relates to postal employees.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by cogburn]

it's still idiotic. it's like firing cash into a cannon. maybe as dollar will land right, but the rest fail.

reply to post by cogburn


H.R. 15090 was presented during the 91st Congress in 1969. It became Public Law 91-171. P.L. 91-171 was the 1970 Defense Appropriation Act. I can't find a copy of 91-171 online. Generally, appropriations are lump sum allocations, not assigned to specific weapons research items but distributed to various agencies (including the branches of the military) to use as they see fit. If there were a specification for such research it would stand out like a sore thumb. I would think that the proponents of this theory would be pasting it all over the web.

In any case, the limited discussion on documentation on H.R. 15090 shown by the proponents of the biological warfare theory appears to be talking about the feasibility of research into defense against BW rather than the production of BW weapons.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Now that's helpful.

For as often as this is quoted online I simply find it mighty suspicious no one has presented the actual text.

I'll remain open and keep digging.

reply to post by cogburn


I've read that the text of the BW discussion is here: Y4.Ap6/1: D36/5/970/part6, pp. 104-144, I'm sure it can be obtained from the Government Printing Office or a library.

There is no doubt the discussion concerns extending the ongoing research in biological warfare. This was during the heart of the cold war. To find out if any, or how much was allocated to research into developing any specific agent, one would have to see the law that resulted from the bill. It is unlikely that anything did because of Nixon's Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs issued in November of 1969 (after the discussion on the bill), prohibiting research into offensive biological agents.

But the point is moot. It has been established that HIV-1 existed in Africa in 1959. Phylogenetic studies have shown that it may have originated as early as 1908.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Note the female voice saying, "Yeah, right!" in a sarcastic tone rather than an affirming tone. The comment about cancer was also part of the joke as evidenced by Hilleman's published opinion about SV40. Yes, it was a joke, albeit a sick one, and it's probably the reason the segment was not aired. Many people would find it offensive and some would take it seriously.

Right..... You go right ahead and believe that.
First it was creative editing now it's a joke.

I've read that Hilleman is talking about monkeys imported in the early '80's but I can't find any solid confirmation of this. If this is the case then obviously there can be no connection with AIDS in the US since it is known the infection was present in this country long before then.

So no evidence then? the interview was done in the early 80's.
Have a look into how the HB vaccines were made, any chimps used by chance, I think we know the answer to that one. And I'm not saying the interview is completely honest either, although at first I did.

Oh, you are correct that the segment does not refer to SV40. But I believe the context of the entire interview concerns the presence of the virus in earlier vaccines. This segment is about Hilleman's efforts to reduce infection of imported animals after the previous problems.

I do agree with you here.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by Phage
But the point is moot. It has been established that HIV-1 existed in Africa in 1959. Phylogenetic studies have shown that it may have originated as early as 1908.

Still clinging to that study eh? You can say it as many times as you like but it doesn't make any more truthful.

The researchers, (if you can call them that) admit that the study has flaws.
Also the study was done under the assumption of natural evolutionary processes and not by recombination which is what retrovirus do. That changes everything.
And even if it was accurate, it relates to an ancestor and not the specific types that emerged from the Congo. And does not falsify the POV hypothesis. This also is admitted.

Interesting to note Korber was also involved in the AIDS infection from Dentist debarkle, Public relations = Propaganda.

The different strains of AIDS is another issue that should be taken into account, the types also conform geographically. The explosion of AIDS in America was of different strains to that of Africa.

Why are their more apologists than conspiracy theorists at ATS, perhaps indulge ignorance should be the Motto.

There's much more to the story. Scientific blunder or biological weapon, either way your being lied too. And profits are being made from death and suffering.

Originally posted by squiz
Still clinging to that study eh? You can say it as many times as you like but it doesn't make any more truthful.

Not clinging to it, just pointing out its findings and offer it to others for their own consideration. I take it into account along with other studies. I don't know if 1908 is accurate but I doubt the study could be off by 50 years.Work on known strains, done previous to the work of Worobey and Korber, validated the phylogenetic methods they used.

The different strains of AIDS is another issue that should be taken into account, the types also conform geographically. The explosion of AIDS in America was of different strains to that of Africa.

Also different from Europe. I believe South Africa is has a different subgroup as well. Of course the subgroups are broken up in to many different types and subtypes. This divergence has also been a point of interest.

The origin of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is controversial. We show here that viruses obtained from the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa have a quantitatively different phylogenetic tree structure from those sampled in other parts of the world. This indicates that the structure of HIV-1 phylogenies is the result of epidemiological processes acting within human populations alone, and is not due to multiple cross-species transmission initiated by oral polio vaccination.

www.nature.com...

Why are their more apologists than conspiracy theorists at ATS, perhaps indulge ignorance should be the Motto.

I'm not an apologist. I look at evidence presented by both sides. The OPV side has its points but the evidence I've seen leans heavily toward natural origins.

What is being done (or not done) in AIDS research and treatment is irrelevant to the origin of HIV and off topic. If you want to discuss that start a new thread.

[edit on 1/20/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Not clinging to it, just pointing out its findings and offer it to others for their own consideration. I take it into account along with other studies.

And I was just pointing out the obvious flaws.

I do agree in part with the extract you posted, it is an area of interest. The OPV theory claims this is from the different batches produced.

I'm not an apologist. I look at evidence presented by both sides. The OPV side has its points but the evidence I've seen leans heavily toward natural origins.

I'm relieved that you can see the validity of the OPV argument, However you fail to see the corruption.
I'm still waiting to see anything conclusive for a natural origin besides a speculative computer simulation. And at the risk of repeating myself, it does not falsify the OPV theory, nor does it explain when zoonosis occured. It doesn't matter, it's an ancestor, as stated.

What is being done (or not done) in AIDS research and treatment is irrelevant to the origin of HIV and off topic. If you want to discuss that start a new thread.

Who are you to say what's relevant? A mod can remove my posts if they are off topic. I would have only made one post in this thread if you had not challenged my opinion, nearly all of my posts were a response to you.

Of course it's relevant. One of the primary ingredients is what exactly is AIDS and it's origins. This is reflected in the science and treatment.
Then there is the question of does HIV really cause AIDS? people think that's a no brainer, but the question is legitimate. Like all things of this nature, it's not so clear cut.

Has anyone else made any ground on the issue, NO. And won't if you aren't aware of all the aspects of AIDS. Of course if you readily swallow the propaganda there's absolutely no hope for the truth.

To exclude any element from the big picture we may end up fooling ourselves.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by squiz]

This is for anyone interested.

I've done a little more research and it seems there is a very decent amount of evidence to support that HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS, (yes still learning) and this issue is at the heart of the deception. The drugs used to treat HIV prove to be more dangerous than HIV itself, the drugs are killing people not HIV. AZT the drug used to treat HIV actually causes immune deficiency!!

Also it appears that the epidemic in Africa and America are completely different, it's not the same disease(s). If true then this bill may take on a new meaning with HIV as a smokescreen. No doubt about it it's a tangled web of deceit.

It's seems more likely we've been wasting our time focusing on HIV. And so has the health system. if you can even call it that, more like unhealth system.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by squiz]

Originally posted by squiz
. . . .
Also it appears that the epidemic in Africa and America are completely different, it's not the same disease(s).

This is what I've concluded.

HIV-1 was created at least twice, the first time being in Africa.
Perhaps someone wanted a faster acting version, and worked in America hoping to create something more lethal.

Being closely related, the two types have managed to interact, triggering fast changes in the virus, making it difficult to create a vaccine.

reply to post by Retseh


I really hope you don't believe that. For centuries humans have eaten monkey meat. Research! Don't say what you heard someeone else say.

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
A proposal to any members here who happens to live in the area around Washington DC.

We need someone on the ground to go in and check out the Library of Congress and request a look at House Bill 15090 from the sessions of the 90th and/or 91st Congresses.
Only then can we put this thing to rest.

You can find the transcript of the subcommittee hearings at any large repository of federal documents, such as your state legislature’s research library. I photocopied it at the research library of the Arizona State Legislature. Ask the librarian for SuDoc# Y4.Ap6/1: D36/5/970/part6. The relevant testimony is on pages 104-144.

I’ll just quote and comment on a few of the more telling sections:

p. 120:
Mr. Flood. Could they be effective and contagious?
Dr. MacArthur. No.
Mr. Flood. I doubt that. I doubt that.
Dr. MacArthur. A contagious disease would not be effective as a biological warfare agent, although it might have devastating effects. It lacks the essential element of control which I alluded to earlier since there would be no way to predict or control the course of the epidemic that might result.

So if we believe Dr. MacArthur, DOD did not intend to create a contagious agent. However, you can’t predict what you are going to get with recombinant DNA.

p.121
Dr. MacArthur. Talking about potential offensive agents, I will first restate the constraints I mentioned earlier that we have put on ourselves as a matter of policy to prevent exactly what people have been saying—that there will be a worldwide scourge, or a black death type disease that will envelop the world or major geographical areas if some of these materials were to accidentally escape. That could not possibly happen with the biological agents that we have. That is a constraint that we have put on ourselves. However, to keep the record straight, we have done a small amount of research on a few agents that do not satisfy this constraint—the reason for this is that a potential enemy might use them against us and we have to be prepared to defend ourselves—so we try to develop vaccines and rapid identification systems, for example, for defensive purposes.

When a government official says, “That could not possibly happen….” It’s time to head for the hills. Is HIV one of those cases where the constraints were not followed?

p.129
Excerpt of written material provided by Dr. MacArthur:
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects 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 relative freedom from infectious disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of his could be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.

We have incontrovertible proof of DOD’s intentions in 1969. Let’s speculate a bit on what happened next. DOD received its $10M and conducted its 5-year study at Ft. Detrick. They did something like what is described in the Strecker memorandum, combining two or more viruses in one animal. Before any one form of the new virus could eliminate competition from the others, the blood of that animal was injected into a number of death row inmates. DOD was looking for a fast-acting, non-contagious agent, and they didn’t find one. So they shut down the project and buried the records. Since no more funding was available, no follow up studies were done on test subjects. At least one test subject was proven innocent and released. Several years after being exposed, he became contagious and spread HIV to several other people; the epidemic was off and running.
[edit on 2010/8/31 by Phractal Phil]

[edit on 2010/8/31 by Phractal Phil]

reply to post by Phractal Phil
The following disappeared from my previous post. I must have exceeded the maximum number of characters, or something.

I personally suspect that all the above had already transpired before DOD went to Congress for funding. Maybe they discovered what they had done and chose to give Congress an opportunity to share in the blame.

While DOD may not have set out to control world population with HIV, it is likely that other organizations, like WHO, did spread HIV intentionally for that purpose. I haven’t seen the documents with my own eyes, but there are internet sites that purport to have them.

reply to post by Phage


I've reviewed the arguements in this thread. Suggested research material should include the Annual Progress Reports of the Special Virus Leukemia Program. It began in 1962, loosely aligned with Cold War activities (creating an infectious cancer virus, among other objectives), and intersects with HR 15090 when the program was renamed the Special Virus Cancer Program. As Nixon proclaimed we would no longer engage in offensive CB research, all active programs towards that end seem to have been folded up under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute, and moved to Ft. Detrick.

Validating the audit trail of those House appropriations via the General Accounting Office has been a goal of a few serious researchers over the years. I have recently contacted the ex-PR manager for Dr. Graves who passed away in the summer of 2010. He went up against the Fed in two attempts at a class action suit, but his tone commonly slips into wild, broad-based accusations about consipracy, thus both cases were dismissed as "frivolous". It's unfortunate his approach wasn't rational. He unearthed the SVCP Research Logic Flowchart (1972) which illustrates in some detail the process of collecting, analyzing and propogating a host of oncogenic (cancer-causing) animal viruses and Type B & C viral particles, then purifying them and conducting in vitro and in vivo trials to determine which are the most lethal, rapidly fatal and viable for mass production, including as a co-factor which would be introduced with a second, perhaps more virulent pathogen. Additional research projects funded by the SVCP included focused studies of aggressive Herpesviruses, of which HHV8 is a member (the causative herpesvirus in Kaposi's Sarcoma).

One notable detail of that Research Logic Flowchart is the creation of a computer system to catalog and track specific virus samples, tissue sources, and patients who might be involved in a cohort study of said viruses. Since the 1980's there has operated the Los Alamos HIV DNA bank in NM. If the appopriations funding from HR 15090 could be traced to the creation and operation of the Los Alamos facility, it would be a crucial link in the chain of evidence of the iatrogenic theory. I'm unaware of anyone who has acquired legit data on that potential relationship.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


Thank you for this Phil. First time I've found someone who got their hands on the Congressional Narrative. I'm going to try to procure this at the WA State Capitol library. Any chance you've scanned this to PDF? I'd be very interested to get a copy from you.

reply to post by Kailassa


If you're curious enough to stick your toe a little further down the rabbit hole, you should investigate two facilities related to chimpanzie research: LEMSIP and VILAB II. The LEMSIP facility (NY) may well have been the lab colony that provided chimps and chimp tissue for the creation of the HEPTAVAX experimental vaccine. VILAB II was located on a small island off the coast of Liberia, and has alleged ties to providing chimps and chimp tissue for vaccine trials in Africa, including smallpox and yellow fever.

reply to post by squiz


I appreciate the scrutiny and that "auto-doubters" are switched on.

Here are some historical events worthy of research in the broader narrative of using Chimpanzie kidney tissue, shipment and distribution of CKT, and parties involved in creating "immortalized cell culture" from CKT - all possible routes of accidental or deliberate infection of a vaccine with SIV or a prototype HIV clayde.

Shipment of CKT from Lindi Camp (Belgian Congo, 1957 - 61) to the Wistar Institute, PA

Production of cell culture from CKT for broad use in research and product development

Discovery of infectious agents in production batches of OPV at Merck (Dr. Jean Eddy)