Gorilla HIV/AIDS - new strain or disinformation?

reply to post by halfoldman

Hence I think that Mbeki's response was linked to all kinds of Africanist thought. Despite the fact that all the denialists were Westerners (apart from one now deceased local doctor), Aids denialism is blamed on "primitive" African thinking. Since Mbeki was a CIA stooge, I believe this was done to undermine local knowledge on the virus, and to secure Western patency rights on it.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by Kailassa

Re AIDS, I've spent years reading up on various people's versions of the history, and come to the conclusion that there are two diseases, both called AIDS, one made in Africa to kill blacks, and another made later in America to kill homosexuals.

In order for this to be true, the government would have to have science about 75 years more advanced that we currently know it. DNA and RNA weren't discovered until 1969 and 1959, respectively, with the first known cases of HIV having been seen in 1959. This suggests that about the time we were discovering HIV, we were also just discovering DNA and RNA. So, using your idea that HIV was "created" by scientists, they would have had to go from discovering DNA/RNA to being able to sequence, manipulate, package, test, and disseminate HIV in less than one year.

I don't think this is likely.

Show me the proof of AIDS in '59, and I'll show you why that proof is suspect.

Also, you don't need to isolate an actual virus to create a new disease.
The 1918 pandemic is said to have been caused by different viruses combining in pigs. Do you think those pigs could use microscopes?

One can create a new disease by infecting animals or humans with various virii at once, and taking plasma from those who develop new infections, and recombining those by injecting them into people, until you have what you're after.


Interestingly, I noticed an article during last year's swine flu scare on sick students being asked to give a little blood to be studied.



[edit on 16/5/10 by Kailassa]

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Good points.
So on chimps and man: there are no intermediate species? Then why bother with Lucy and Australopithecus? Why bother with fossils at all?

With HIV/Aids - so it is a "lifestyle" disease?
One won't progress to AIDS with a certain lifestyle?

Somehow you've misunderstood me on both points.
re evolution:
Man did not evolve from chimps.
Both chimps and man evolved from an earlier primate which no longer exists except as fossils.
There are fossils of intermediate species linking man to this earlier primate, and there are fossils of intermediate species linking chimps to this earlier primate.


Re AIDS:
AIDS is man-made, it is caused by a rotovirus, and it can respond to the appropriate medication.

However, like all diseases, a healthy lifestyle with good nutrition is necessary in order to have the best outcome.

It's like TB, which is also an infectious disease, needing appropriate medication, and which also is far more lethal if the infected person is undernourished and has poor living conditions.

I believe the myth, that AIDS is just the result of certain lifestyle factors, was invented to cover up the fact that it is man made.

Why could man not have evolved from chimps? Could that form not have been the basis of the hominids?

You make many good points, and I'd hate to argue with somebody as informed and cogent as yourself.

However, what is good nutrition? Even concentration camp victims weren't short of minerals or vitamins (I speak under correction here based on tracts I've read). South Africa, with its astronomical HIV/AIDS figures was never a starving country. The gays weren't starving people when AIDS hit them in the 1980s. So exactly what is the "good nutrition" that staves off AIDS?

Show me the proof of AIDS in '59, and I'll show you why that proof is suspect.

reply to post by Kailassa


I'm a bit perplexed by the above quote. Why should it be wrong that we have our first tested blood from that period? Of course it was tested in hindsight, and other cases allude to this too (John Ilifee: "The African AIDS Epidemic: A History", 2006, Oxford U.P.).
Please explain how it doesn't fit a paradigm on HIV/AIDS.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by Kailassa

Show me the proof of AIDS in '59, and I'll show you why that proof is suspect.

No problem.
HIV-1 sequence in 1959 African sample
HIV Possibly traced back to 1930s Africa
1959 sample from Belgian Congo

Also, you don't need to isolate an actual virus to create a new disease.
The 1918 pandemic is said to have been caused by different viruses combining in pigs. Do you think those pigs could use microscopes?

You're comparing apples to oranges. The 1918 flu was the result of two similar viruses exchanging bits of transposable genetic data. HIV has to "sister-virus" to share RNA with, it doesn't have anything similar enough to share anything with, apart from SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), which is theorized to be the progenitor that HIV evolved from, not combined with.

One can create a new disease by infecting animals or humans with various virii at once, and taking plasma from those who develop new infections, and recombining those by injecting them into people, until you have what you're after.

That's not how viral engineering works. You can't combine "various viruses". Viruses can only share genetic information with members of the same strain, sometimes even substrain. This is because the transposable genetic elements that are shared between them recognize a very narrow range of genetic sequences. Rhinoviruses can share genetic material between them because they all have the same transposon marker, but a rhinovirus cannot share genetic information with a lentivirus, because they have incompatible transposon/marker sytems.

Interestingly, I noticed an article during last year's swine flu scare on sick students being asked to give a little blood to be studied
[edit on 16/5/10 by Kailassa]

Why is that interesting? Anytime we have a relatively new viral outbreak, the first response by the CDC and NIH is to acquire as many samples as possible from patients so that we can study how the virus works and how to kill it.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Re AIDS:
AIDS is man-made, it is caused by a rotovirus, and it can respond to the appropriate medication.

HIV is a retrovirus, not rotavirus. Rotaviruses cause diarrhea and abdominal cramps in children.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


HIV is a retrovirus, not rotavirus. Rotaviruses cause diarrhea and abdominal cramps in children.

Thanks.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

OK, so you're saying HIV is older than the 1959 sample from Leopoldville (which was tested and re-tested in the 1980s). I totally second that opinion. Actually so do the books, which point to the sparcity of blood samples from that period, and if that blood tested positive then the virus was already well-established.

reply to post by halfoldman


Yes, I think the virus is most certainly older. Our discovery of the virus was hampered by our technology at the time, which is why we are now able to go back to some of these 70-90 year old samples and retroactively detect the virus.

Originally posted by halfoldman

Why could man not have evolved from chimps? Could that form not have been the basis of the hominids?

Think of it as a tree branching through time.

A single-celled organism branched into 2 forms. These forms each changed into more forms. Way down the track you get creatures with warm blood, soft furry skin, which grow their young inside their bodies. These keep branching into various types, one of which is an early primate form, close to what we now know as lemurs.

This form continued to split into branches. Humans evolved from one branch and chimps evolved from another.

So chimps are not our ancestors. They are our cousins.

- just like you and your cousins share a common grandparent.

You make many good points, and I'd hate to argue with somebody as informed and cogent as yourself.

Thank you, but I can still get things wrong.

However, what is good nutrition?

Good nutrition is pretty vague, as "good" in this context is relative.
However you'd know already that a diet of corn and rice is not good nutrition, and that it become better nutrition if you add yoghurt, greens, fruit and protein.
Ideal nutrition will keep the body healthy through almost any infection, but few can manage that, and what's ideal varies depending on your genes, your age, and many other circumstances.

Even concentration camp victims weren't short of minerals or vitamins (I speak under correction here based on tracts I've read).

Depends on the prison camp. Lots of studies of various types of malnutrition have been done on people in prison camps.

www.google.com.au...:en-GBfficial&client=firefox-a

Many Jews and others in the German work camps died of starvation, which is the ultimate form of malnutrition.

South Africa, with its astronomical HIV/AIDS figures was never a starving country. The gays weren't starving people when AIDS hit them in the 1980s. So exactly what is the "good nutrition" that staves off AIDS?

Please don't put words in quotation marks when they are not a quote.
I never said those words.
I never said good nutrition prevents AIDS.
However the more malnourished you are, the less likely it is that your HIV will be controllable. - Just like with tuberculosis.

I don't personally know how useful medication is for AIDS. However I respect your opinion, as you are familiar with this scene and I am not. You believe the medication is helpful, I believe you know what you are talking about.

However, medication on it's own does not cure anything. Your body must do a lot of work for itself, with the help of the medication. A well nourished body will take longer to get sick, and will be more likely to recover. Recovery doesn't mean eliminating the HIV virus, but people can go back from full on AIDS to merely being HIV positive again.

Let's make one thing clear at least.
I have never blamed AIDS on lifestyle.

When I caught swine flu I had good nutrition and it was not lifestyle induced. However improving my nutrition helped me get over it.

Healthy, well nourished people can catch HIV and die of AIDS. But, on an average, poorly nourished people will die of it a lot faster.

reply to post by Kailassa

Thanks for the great reply! I put "good nutrition" into inverted commas to recognize the relative nature of the terminology, as opposed to something else, and hence it was not a quotation or intended as such.
thanx

Originally posted by halfoldman

Show me the proof of AIDS in '59, and I'll show you why that proof is suspect.

reply to post by Kailassa

 

I'm a bit perplexed by the above quote. Why should it be wrong that we have our first tested blood from that period? Of course it was tested in hindsight, and other cases allude to this too (John Ilifee: "The African AIDS Epidemic: A History", 2006, Oxford U.P.).
Please explain how it doesn't fit a paradigm on HIV/AIDS.

An interesting detail left out of any discussion about the subject from whom L70 sample (which produced ZR59) was obtained is his age. We do not know whether this person was an adult, child or baby.
If the subject was very young, he may have been a recipient of a vaccine made using chimpanzees, and been infected through this vaccine.
There is also a problem with the relevance of the data, as there is no indication that the subject either caught HIV from another human or ever passed it on.

As an example, we have many cases recorded of avian influenza in humans over the past few years. However the infection is not commonly being passed human to human. If the enhanced and highly infectious H5N1 which has been created in the last 10 years is ever released into the community, no amount of similar genetic instances occurring previously will be relevant.
(The above paragraphs were written a few years ago.)

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.

www.aidsorigins.com...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dr. Ho, who helped identify HIV-1 in the L70 sample, was part of a group very eager to find proof that HIV-1 has been around for a long time.
I question the research of anyone who is so determined to prove the correctness of a particular line of thought, rather than simply investigating to find the truth, whatever it happens to be.
It is concern about the biased results this can lead to which has led to scientific journals insisting that the affiliations of researchers be declared.

In research on another 1959 sample, Dr Ho found that the sample had been contaminated with recent HIV-1-containing material.
If this experiment had the extra material added intentionally, we have to wonder to what extent people would go to to find another false positive.

Earliest AIDS Case Is Called Into Doubt

www.aidsorigins.com...

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 halfoldman
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Thanks for the great reply! I put "good nutrition" into inverted commas to recognize the relative nature of the terminology, as opposed to something else, and hence it was not a quotation or intended as such.
thanx

I see that now.
My apologies.

I question the research of anyone who is so determined to prove the correctness of a particular line of thought, rather than simply investigating to find the truth, whatever it happens to be.

You say this, and then in the same post use only reference from a site whose stated purpose is to expose the "version [of AIDS history] which is scientifically and historically flawed, but which serves the interests of certain powerful political groupings, and a large portion of the "vaccination fraternity"".

So, you feel Dr. Ho's work is flawed by a potential bias (despite the hundreds of researchers and dozens of labs that collaborated with him and confirmed his work), but you DO trust a website whose sole purpose is to expose scientists as some kind of dark cabal, trying to hide away the "real" history of HIV?

reply to post by MrDarlingFace

People who get HIV have their cd4 counts go dangerously low and then begin to get different infections...where is the hypothesis? I don't have that problem...there has to be a problem for that to occur. And not everyone takes meds, and they weren't taking it in the 80's when it first appeared and was particularly virulent.

People who have AIDS have their cd4 counts go dangerously low and this leads to a weakening of the immune system which allows for opportunistic infections and illness. HIV, a retrovirus, has been advocated as the source of that, but as I stated in my original post, if HIV is a virus why doesn't it act like all other viruses? There certainly does have to be a problem in order for AIDS to exist. Something is causing that, but Even Gallo has backed off of advocating HIV as the sole source of causing AIDS and has now advocated that is is a factor. Gallo has, of course, had to do this because all the predictions he made failed.

As to the medications, I made no mention of this. I simply spoke to this mysterious retro-virus HIV, and pointed to just some of the anomalies that have arisen since its advocacy. At best, nearly 30 years later, HIV remains a theory, and when the rigid standards of the scientific method are applied, it truly remains a hypothesis, and the ever changing definition of AIDS, in order to fit the HIV=AIDS paradigm remains as much a mystery today, as when it was first diagnosed as GRIDS back in the 1970's.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Well, if "HIV-causes-AIDS" is a theory, the confluence of evidence form different narrative genres and literature sure makes it one of the profoundest theories ever.



[edit on 17-5-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


HIV does act like other viruses. It is an obligate intracellular organism/particle that has a small bit of genetic code, requires a host cell to replicate, and follows the same basic structural patterns as other viruses. The complexity of HIV is in its cellular target and its means of genetic integration.

[edit on 5/17/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Well, if "HIV-causes-AIDS" is a theory, the confluence of evidence form different narrative genres and literature sure makes it one of the profoundest theories ever.



[edit on 17-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Actually, the theory of evolution is far more profound, and yet, still remains that, a theory.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You're confusing the scientific term with the common use of the term. A scientific theory is one that has been deeply researched and is now generally accepted as valid. The common use of the word "theory" is much looser and implies little to no research.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Living with HIV/AIDS ain't no theory.
It's usually not a theory people would like to debunk through experience.