It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


AIDS is a man made virus !

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:05 PM
reply to post by Nutter

there you have it, that is the reason this virus was made , and just think of all the ones coming out now, 20 years is a long test on the worlds populous, just think of how many would be here to day 10 Billion? how many have we heard of in the last 2 years, H1N1, SARS, Avian Nipah, ever wondered if the "STAND" could be real check out WHO watch list: WHO disease out break news, real time reports and out break updates, some one has the flu see were and how bad, you two can keep a death count.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:05 PM
Are you just now realizing this?

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:07 PM
Aids has killed 20-35 million if it was designed to lower the population it really hasn't. Made a dent when the global.population is 6 billion +

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Nutter

i will say it again

there is NO DIRECT PROOF THAT THE VIRUS EXISTS the studies that indicated it did exist have been proven to be FRAUDULANT.

Each individual HIV virus has two copies of the RNA which
specifies its genetic information. The new tests for viral
load detect this RNA, and the test results are usually given
as number of copies per milliliter of blood plasma. For
example, if someone get a test result of 100,000 (a fairly
high number), it means they have 100,000 copies of the RNA
(or 50,000 virus particles) per milliliter of plasma.-

Two completely different methods, quantitative PCR (currently
being developed as a standardized test kit by Roche Molecular
Systems, Somerville, New Jersey) and branched DNA (developed
by Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, California), are now being
widely used in research to test for the amount of HIV RNA in
blood. A short explanation of how they work appeared in
"Better Tests for HIV Activity; Interview with Mark B.
Feinberg, M.D., Ph.D., AIDS Treatment News # 186, November 5,
1993. These two different kinds of tests measure the same
thing, and usually they give comparable results.

AZT was part of a"cocktail" I used it as an example of how the syndrom is created.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:11 PM
I remember the hysteria of the 80s this new disease that would decimate the population. We would all know a friend or relative that has become infected and died. With the exception of certain rock stars, this did not really happen – the disease caused absolute havoc in the African communities but European blood; we had some immunity from surviving the Black Death [which today still makes sense].

On the note of the HIV - RNA virus, I was studying biochemistry at university when the HIV virus was first mapped. It is worth noting how these strands are made. The DNA (or RNA) is extracted and an enzyme is added. The enzyme will always cut at a specific sequence say AATGC. Different enzymes cut at different (specified) sequences. Once cut, the strands of DNA (or RNA) is added to cut items and another enzyme is added to encourage (any) recombination. This is not an exact science, there will be all sorts of recombination – so the next step is to filter on the recombination that you want. [In the 80s at least], this is not like building a bicycle from scratch – it is more like taking out your wheels from your bike and then adding at random different types of wheels – and selecting for the smooth ride.

Well looking at the HIV virus if I wanted to make a man made virus, I would expect to see a small number of distinct cuts for the main enzymes at the time – and sure enough the 3 or 4 major enzymes all had one cut spread evenly around the genome.
No cuts for any of these enzymes would prove substantially that it was not man made.

Please carry on your study but bear in mind:
• Genome recombination is not an exacting science as described above
• There are two questions here – “Was the virus man made?” and “If it was, what was the reason that it left the laboratory?”

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:11 PM

Originally posted by alysha.angel

Originally posted by Solasis
Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.

i am just getting started and i plan to do my own research into this .

but i for one have believed this since i was a teenager .

It might be a good idea to read some sources that DON'T reinforce what you already believe. Otherwise you aren't engaging in critical thinking. Rather, you're walling yourself in and avoiding any doubt whatsoever.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:16 PM
Back in the late 70's and early 80's, my friend Joe and I used to collect information on end times subjects. Any political WW-III theories or new military weapons that pointed to the "end" were subjects of interest to both of us. Having only newspaper reports and TV news broadcasts at the time we sometimes saved newspaper articles and showed them to each other.

One day in the summer of 1978 or 1979 he showed me an article in the science section of either the Detroit News, the Detroit Free Press (separate papers at the time) or possibly the Macomb Daily (a Macomb County local daily) that was entitled "Killer Cell" and had a line drawn picture of a spherical, virus looking, cell with the article. What the article actually said was that it was a biological weapon developed by the U.S. military. It said it was an engineered virus that attacked the human T-cell (or killer cell) allowing the virus to disable the immune system. The lowered immunity would then allow other diseases to take over the body and kill the person infected by the engineered virus.

Do I have this article? No, I don't know what became of it. Does Joe have it any more? I doubt it as the last time I saw him he was a derelict drunk living with a crack-ho making a living scraping junk around Detroit. Is it possible to locate this article in the newspaper's archives? Probably not for long after this post. Maybe someone has or remembers this newspaper article or one like it?

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by drock905
Aids has killed 20-35 million if it was designed to lower the population it really hasn't. Made a dent when the global.population is 6 billion +


Why would they make it a disease transmitted sexually and via blood? You can live with a person with HIV and never run the slightest risk of him transmitting it to you. You want something that spreads a LOT easier if you want to bring down the population. Think "black plague." Or cholera. Or tuberculosis.

And why exactly would they have worked so hard to eradicate smallpox (which was finally eliminated in the 1970s), only to turn around and make a NEW virus that wasn't nearly as communicable and takes FOREVER (relatively speaking) to kill someone?

That's what we call a logic FAIL of epic proportions.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:25 PM
I keep on reading and coming across people that claim that AIDS is a man made virus or disease. The people I associate with daily are all Doctors and Medical Practitioners of one form or another. Many are under the belief that AIDS is man made.

There is a very fascinating book by a Dr Horowitz a Harvard researcher called

EMERGING VIRUSES: AIDS and EBOLA, nature, accidental or intentional.
ISBN-13: 978-0923550127

I would recommend everyone on this topic thread who has an interest in this read this book as a point of reference as a lot of research and money went into this book.

This is just my opinion and you can buy it from amazon second hand or maybe get it at a local library.
Please let me know if any of you decide to read this book and let me know your thoughts.

I do have some concerns with the viral procedures but on the whole this book does show you that the US gov has and will develop a lot of nasty things for use in biological war and on their own people.

read with an open mind.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by sassyncute]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:28 PM
reply to post by bluedrake

The only thing that really confused me about the statement that it was man made is, why would you make a disease that took a few years to kill the person?

A member of the conspirators making the decision to covertly murder half of the worlds population, would probably have made a decision as to when they wanted the major numbers to start dropping.

HIV can apparently remain dormant in it's victims for quite a number of years, before suddenly, for whatever obscure reason becoming active and attacking the body. Around 20 years or so i've read.

If the plan was enacted the late 70's/early 80's, this would ensure that the vast majority of people infected, say during 1977 - 1985, would be dead no later than 2005 or thereabouts.

This would more or less fit within the time-frame from the OP.

As has been said, a lot of money would be made in the lead up to the victims death, so two birds with one stone in their view i'd imagine, and as good a reason as any (however inhuman it may seem to us) to keep the victims alive, especially when you know their ultimate 'sell by date'.

Do i beleive the governments and their departments of this world, are capable and willing to callously experiment and injure their own countrymen and women, for their own benefit, however they ultimately try to justify it?

No...I KNOW they have. It's well documented and proven, and fully searchable if you're interested.

I don't really buy them reducing the population like this, with HIV, though..the only real, albeit barbaric and inhuman reason would be for the money. I know trillions seems a lot, but it's not big enough to murder half of their own species.

The simpler and more humane method to control population would be to introduce a single child policy. It's simple math..for every two people that die naturally, only one child will replace them..and when that child procreates, his or her child will replace it's two parents, and so on and on. The population would drop like a stone..naturally, without the blood of a species on anyone's' hands.

It doesn't add up to me.

[edit on 2/8/2010 by spikey]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:29 PM
I first heard about AIDS being designed by Dr. Graves.. from the Air Force I believe..


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by alysha.angel

Like I say always. How can you build a virus like AIDS if you did not know the genetic code? AIDS is an old virus. The genetic code was discovered after it. How could you design it?

reply to post by Danbones

If you're saying that AIDS does not exist that is dumb. The RNA IS the virus. That is what a Virus is. A replicating code.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:48 PM
HIV is the virus, which breaks down the immune system, once the immune system has broken down, and the person develops a life threatening condition such as pneumonia, they are then said to have developed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

The term AIDS was first used by doctors when the exact nature of the HIV virus was not fully understood. However, the term is no longer widely used because it is too general to describe the many different conditions that can affect somebody with HIV. Specialists now prefer to use the terms advanced or late-stage HIV infection.

HIV - Introduction

The origin of HIV has been found in wild chimpanzees living in southern Cameroon, researchers report.

A virus called SIVcpz (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus from chimps) was thought to be the source, but had only been found in a few captive animals.

Now, an international team of scientists has identified a natural reservoir of SIVcpz in animals living in the wild.

The findings are to be published in Science magazine.

It is thought that people hunting chimpanzees first contracted the virus - and that cases were first seen in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo - the nearest urban area - in 1930.

HIV origin 'found in wild chimps'

Although I can see why there would be suspicion as to it being a man made virus, it's also easy to see how it could have slowly spread from apes of the jungle, and once into the mainstream population, just exploded. You know what is to blame? Planes, holidays and commercial travel. If you want to know what I mean by that, google "Captain Cook Tahiti and gonorrhea", OK, that was well before planes and commercial travel, but its a good example of STD's being introduced by foreigners, and how paradise was destroyed as a result.

[edit on 2/8/10 by woogleuk]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:02 PM
(NOTE: This is a post I made in a previous "AIDS is man-made" thread and have saved for just such an occasion, as these threads tend to pop up on a monthly basis).

Among HIV denialists, there are four claims: (1) AIDS is man made, (2) HIV tests are not reliable, (3) HIV has never been reliably identified, and (4) antiviral therapy given to HIV patients results in AIDS, not the virus itself.

I'll tackle these one by one. I will cite sources with the traditional brackted number system ( such as [1] ), which will link to a reference, should anyone wish to check my reference or read the studies I've cited.

First, we should correct an error of notation in the original post. AIDS is a syndrome (hence the S in AIDS). It is simply the state of having acquired an immunodeficiency, and can be genetic, the result of an infection, or the result of environmental issues. That being said, the most common infectious cause of such a state is human immunodeficiency virus (the most common overall being malnutrition) [1]. What the original post was trying to suggest (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the human immunodeficiency virus was man-made.

Having established that it is the virus we're interested in, showing that it isn't man-made is rather simple. Historically, the story goes that HIV was first seen in the 1970s. While this was certainly when it gained prominence, scientists have since found HIV in samples dating back to 1959, all from Africa, suggesting a region of origin [2]. If you have access to the journal "Nature", the article (which is a wonderful read) is in the February 5, 1998 issue. Now, having established that HIV at least as far back as 1959, let's examine the scientific community at that time. In 1953, Watson, Crick and Franklin discovered the structure of DNA, though any sort of manipulation was still beyond the reach of then-modern science [3]. Though they were able to show the structure, the actual nature of DNA, that is, the basic hereditary unit of all human cells, was still unknown. It wasn't for another five years, until the Meselsohn-Stahl experiments [4], that the scientific world would realize what, exactly, DNA does. Now, couple this with the fact that HIV uses RNA, a related molecule whose role wasn't discovered until 1959 [5], and we're in a pickle.

Let's take these last two bits of information into consideration. If HIV were discovered to have existed in 1959 (or even 1970, if we're being generous), then that means scientists somehow managed to manipulate existing viruses (or novel proteins) with genetic material they had only discovered the nature of the year prior. Currently, we are still having difficulties manipulating viruses, and that's with fully-sequenced genomes, DNA sequenced to order, and libraries of previous genetic experiments to draw upon. How on earth would scientists in the 1950s have been able to perform such delicate work with DNA when they essentially only knew that it existed, and that it carried hereditary material? That's not even taking into account our limited knowledge of glycoproteins (the main reason HIV is so dangerous) in the 1950s. We also lacked the sequencers and enzyme-synthesis abilities necessary to grow personalized viruses in culture in the 1950s.

MYTH 2: HIV tests are not reliable
Again, we have an error, either of notation or omission, by the original poster. There are many types of HIV tests, some more precise than others. The type of test used depends entirely on the setting, as well as whether the patient has had a previous positive or negative result previously. We also need to establish two terms: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is defined as the number of true positives divided by the sum of true positives and false negatives, thus negative results in a highly sensitive test will efficiently rule OUT a disease. Specificity is defined as the number of true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives and false positives, thus a highly specific test will identify all truly negative results and positive results can role IN a disease.

With those definitions in mind, let's look at the two main types of HIV tests used in clinical practice: ELISA and Rapid Test. The Rapid Test is typically used in "minute clinics" and general practitioner settings. It can be performed orally, and measures the presence of anti-HIV antibodies. The drawback to this test is that it requires the person to have been infected for 3-4 months, as your body needs to have mounted some level of an immune response. This test is 99.5% sensitive (meaning few, if any, false negatives) and over 99.9& specific (meaning very few, if any, false positives). This data has been demonstrated both by clinical trials, as well as by the CDC and FDA [6]. Any positive result in a Rapid Test is follwed by a MANDATORY second test using a different method. This protocol MUST be followed by federal regulations to ensure a positive diagnosis. The second test, ELISA, is the most common "second test" used to confirm a Rapid Test. This test again relies on anti-HIV antibodies to be present, though alternative PCR methodologies can be employed if early-infection state is suspected in the patient. Blood is drawn and then cross-reacted with known samples of HIV, as well as diseases known to cause a false-positive (such as lupus and syphilis). If a positive result is produced, the sample is analyzed via Western blot to confirm the identify of the antibody, to ensure it is specifically anti-HIV [7].

As shown above, HIV testing is a multi-level and multi-platform process. It isn't one, single test, and it isn't something done haphazardly. To suggest that the testing is inaccurate or unreliable shows a clear misunderstanding of how a patient is tested following an initial positive result. In all clinical experiences where I have had a patient test positive by OraQuick Rapid Test, they have had no less than two further testing methods (typically ELISA and Western blot) before I felt comfortable telling them they have formally been diagnosed with HIV. This is not my personal standard, it is the federal standard that ALL physicians are required to follow before tendering such a diagnosis.

(Continued in next post...)

[edit on 8/2/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:04 PM
MYTH 3: HIV has never been reliably identified
This myth is perhaps the most easily debunked. There are multitude of electron micrographs in the public domain showing HIV. Here are a few: [8], [9], [10]. Perhaps the most interesting of these three pictures (in my opinion, at least), is the third. It shows a mature HIV particle budding from a human lymphocyte, which is clearly distinguishable by the nature of the granules inside the cell plasma. This picture not only provides a glimpse into the microstructure of the virus, but it clearly demonstrates the virus's ability to infect and reproduce within lymphocytes. This reproduction is a common mechanism used among virsues, and often leads to the destruction of the host cell, which in this case is usually a CD4 Helper T-cell. This destruction is the reason AIDS is defined as a CD4-count below 200. The virus targets CD4 cells for destruction (as demonstrated in this picture, as well as in the studies accompanying those pictures), which eventually leads to a immunodeficient state, or AIDS.

This section, unfortunately, I have to use my drug reference manual as a reference. I'm unable to find a resource as thorough and accesible online. If you have any issue with the information provided, PLEASE reply or send a U2U, and I will do my best to find an online source for you, I promise!

Examining the nature of antiretroviral drugs (those specifically given for HIV) very clearly demonstrates that such an adverse effect is simply not possible. There are several classes of these drugs [11], and I'll do my best to explain each one succintly, as well as why it could not produce an immunodeficient state:
(1) Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs): nucleosides are DNa bases that lack the functional group necessary for elongation. The NRTIs are made specific to the sequence of the HIV genome, thus they can incorporate into the newly synthesized DNA, made while HIV is trying to integrate into C4 T-cells, and interrupt the elongation of that DNA. As the HIV genome sequence does not exist in human genomes in any form, cross-reaction between human DNA and the nucleosides is unlikely.
(2)Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs): rather than inserting into the viral DNA and preventing elongation, these drugs bind specifically to the viral reverse transcriptase enzyme and stop it's function. This enzyme does not exist in the human genome, nor does any homologous enzyme, so cross-reaction is impossible and cannot cause immunodeficiency.
(3)Protease Inhibitors (PIs): protease inhibitors target the viral machinery used to clip and shape proteins (specifically, glycoproteins) into the form used to create the viral capsid. Without protease, mature HIV cannot be formed, and spread of infection is not possible. The proteases are specific to HIV, and thus, cross-reaction with human proteases is not possible.
(4)Fusion Inhibitors (FIs): fusion inhibitors interfere with the proteins/receptors used by HIV to fuse to CD4 cells prior to entry into the cell. These receptors are specific to HIv and do not interefere with normal CD4 or CD8 function, thus no immunodeficiency is possible due to this drug class's action.
(5)Integrase inhibitors: integrase inibitors target the viral machinery (other than reverse transcriptase) that allows the viral cDNA to insert into the host cell's genomic DNA. Preventing this integration stalls the replication of the virus. As there is no machinery for such an integration in the native human cell, no cross-reaction is possible.

In addition to these, there are a few lesser-used classes that are rarely used alone, more often being supplmental to the classes above.

Now, as a final note about these drugs, I think it should be noted that HIV is now considered a chronic disease by medical professionals. It is viewed in the same way as diabetes: through careful management, you can live a long and (relatively) healthy life. The life expectancy for HIV patients has SKY-ROCKETED since the intoduction of combination anti-retroviral therapy. If these drugs were the cause of AIDS, wouldn't we see the opposite? Wouldn't HIV patients be seeing a constant DECREASE in life span as new drugs are produced and higher/tougher regimens are prescibed? The fact is, we don't see this effect, so suggesting these drugs cause AIDS is illogical and without merit.

Closing Remarks
I apologize for a post (or two) of such length, but as you can see, I've put quite a bit of time, effort, and research into this topic, partially from a person/professional interest, and partially because I am absolutely exhausted from repeating this information ad infinitum on these boards in piece-meal format. I have saved the entirety of these two posts, and will use them as constant references in future threads on the topic.

If anyone has ANY questions regarding the information in these posts, or if a reference is broken/missing, please post a reply or send a U2U. I will be more than happy to answer anything that is not a personal attack on myself or my profession. Any such attack will warrant an immediate ALERT as a violation of the ATS terms and conditions. I've done it before, and I'll do it again, I promise you.

[edit on 8/2/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by alysha.angel

The most agreed theory is it came from Africa in the Congo in the
1950's via Chimpanzees.

But there is a lesser followed theory that agrees with your statement.

AIDS - History

The earliest known positive identification of the HIV virus comes from the Congo in 1959 and 1960 though genetic studies indicate that it passed into the human population from chimpanzees around fifty years earlier.[9] A recent study states that HIV probably moved from Africa to Haiti and then entered the United States around 1969.[162]

A more controversial theory known as the OPV AIDS hypothesis suggests that the AIDS epidemic was inadvertently started in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Hilary Koprowski's research into a poliomyelitis vaccine.[163][164] According to scientific consensus, this scenario is not supported by the available evidence.[165][166][167]

So if u want to verify your claim I'd back track that man's research
and you might find what your looking for.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:31 PM
in the origin of AIDS article, under the 'Considering The Genocidal Theory of AIDS' section, it says "At that time Kissinger and associates were leading advisors to the Merck pharmaceutical company whose president, George W. Merck, was America’s biological weapons industry director, as he had been since World War II"

now it might just be me, but i find it rather odd that some of Merck pharmaceuticals products are:

Crixivan (indinavir) – a protease inhibitor HIV medication
Isentress (raltegravir) - HIV integrase inhibitor
M-M-R II (MMR Vaccine) - immunization against measles, mumps and rubella
Recombivax HB (hepatitis B vaccine) - a vaccine that protects against hepatitis B

and George W. Merck, the companies president at the time, was americas biological weapons industry director.

like i said, it might just be me, but when the AIDS virus has been linked to experimental hepatitis b vaccines, and the company who creates these vaccines president is also a biological weapons industry director.. it just doesnt sit right with me

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by alysha.angel

Man-made? Can be .... could be .... maybe is ......

It is made in a laboratory somewhere about 50 years ago and been spread from African continent.

For a long time I believed it accidently did spread after scientific experiments on monkees.

Now it all makes to seem sense. Africa was not only a Third World continent back in the 50S and 60S but the Western World (so called 'develloped' countries
) had started to loose their properties and influence in/on the continent.

Back in that time period (mid 20th Century) Africa was the battlefield between the Arabic world and the Western world, it was so since early 20th century. So what better area to pick a continent like that to try and control then that specific continent?
They, 'the Western clan' 'didn't have anything to loose in Africa anymore.

For a long I didn't want to believe humans could be (can be) so caught up in saving 'their own' (silly when you are globally so diveded) and killing 'others'.

Now I can see that the more people 'awake to see the Light', the counterside (flip side of the coin?) the more darkness has to be.

Who knows what is right and what is what is wrong? I cannot answer this since I believe there is nothing but 'choices'.

Yes humans can do very negative things and make themselves believe it's all for the good reasons.

On the purposely spreading of AIDS I do not believe there will ever be an official document found.


[edit on 8/2/2010 by Melyanna Tengwesta]

[edit on 8/2/2010 by Melyanna Tengwesta]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:44 PM
AIDS is man made. This is old news. It even has a cure. The patent # 5676977.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:44 PM
AIDS is man made. This is old news. It even has a cure. The patent # 5676977.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in