independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 20th Nov 2017 10:28pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Creation of AIDS?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 9 <123456789>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 03/11/11 3:30am

MrSoulpower

Spinlight said:

MrSoulpower said:

No, it doesn't. It only leds credence to the idea that the U.S. government experiemented with STDs in Guatemala. You can't automatically assume that the same is true for AIDS, just because. or Jeffrey Dahmer is automatically presumed guilty for every murder in the United States.

The known history of the HI-Virus speaks against the theory of human engineering, and there is really no solid evidence for this theory.

But there is just as much unknown stuff out there as to the origin of AIDS. It's not a cold hard facts type of deal.

There are some unknowns, but there are also many hard facts. Like the fact that HIV-1 is a mutation from SIV. When you take this fact into consideration, then it already destroys the "manmade" theory.

Just because there are still some unknowns that doesn't mean it is manmade. The problem is that you still have absolutely no proof for that theory, yet you find it more credible than the already known facts. That doesn't make any sense from a logical point of view.

There are still many unknowns about evolution, yet the consenus in the science community is that it is a fact. Are you going to argue against that, too?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 03/11/11 3:45am

MrSoulpower

paisleypark4 said:

MrSoulpower said:

One of your sites supported my consiracy theory though

The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s (more about this period can be found on our History of AIDS page). A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome.

I already showed evidence of that. Particularly, these were the gay men that were vaccinated by the hundreds in the bigger cities...they "all of a sudden" had the virus. Hmm.

Then the theory by the chimpanzees to human jump is a confounding study; however still does not shape the mold as into how it happened. The rumous went around the world that Africans were eating the monkeys / having sex with / or being scratched by monkeys..and like someone said to us in school...these "probably" were the ways it got spread.

It can be pretty factual that they may or may not. It is always good to speculate. I did read those before..and still even with all their research; it just seems VERY VERY odd that GAY MEN, and African Americans were the singlehanded target (the most hands down hated race / sexual prefrence in the world) of this disease, thus my train of thought. It just seems like there is more to this than what we know...like ufos and illuminati....there is more to the surface. Call me a conspirialist, I don't care, learning about both sides can't hurt...and the side I choose is my business. My gut feeling just says disbelief on this subject.

How does this quote above support your conspiracy theory? It doesn't. All it does it point out that the AIDS pandemic in the U.S. started among gay men in America. That does not support the theory that AIDS was manmade and is used for population control.

The same site you took the quote from also explains why the pandemic first spread among younger gay men - for various reasons. Because there is a higher risk of getting the HI-Virus through anal sex, because at the time, gay men had more partners, because young gay men usually have a higher income due to their lack of children and they travel more due to their above average income, which helped the virus spread. It is all very clearly laid out on that website, yet you copy and paste a quote, take it out of context and claim that it supports your theory - when it doesn't.

It is true that it is not known how exactly the virus first spread to humans. But there are many arguments for the so called bushmeat theory ... But again, just because there are still unanswered questions, you cannot automatically assume that AIDS is manmade and brush aside all known facts - especially when you still have failed to present a single verifiable fact for your theory.

And you still ignore a key argument - the fact that HIV-1 is a mutation from the SI-Virus. That's not a theory, that's a fact, and this fact shatters your "manmade"-theory, unless scientists 80+ years ago already had the knowledge of how to engineer a killer virus and the foresight that overpopulation would become an issue 40+ years later. None of this makes any sense, yet you use the same methods as 9/11 "truthers" by taking certain aspects out of context, ignoring certain evidence and drawing your own conclusions about a theory for that you have no proof.

Of course it can never be wrong to speculate and investigate all possibilities - and I already wrote earlier on this thread that in the 1980s, many credible scientists looked into the "manmade" theory. But they did not find evidence for that, and especially since the SIV connection was made, the overwhelming consenus in the scientific community is that the "manmade" theory is bogus.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 03/11/11 4:17am

damosuzuki

avatar

MrSoulPower is a one man wrecking machine on this thread. Everything I have to say just echoes his previous comments.

This really is very much like every other fringe belief (UFOs, creationism, homeopathy), and the challenge to groups making the claim is always the same. Believe whatever you like, but if you want your case to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a fringe conspiracy then provide at least some proof.

If we are to accept that AIDS was engineered for some purpose, then you have to build a plausible case with evidence. Ideally, you should present evidence equal to or greater than the evidence that shows HIV is descended from SIV through the established evolutionary ways viruses can move across species, but at the least you have to present some evidence.

Is it plausible that HIV is man made? As MrSoulpower pointed out, HIV has been identified in humans as early as 1959, and genetic tests suggest it may date back to the late 1800s, so people claiming human engineering need to show that the technology to engineer a virus for a specific purpose existed at least in 1959 and probably as early as the late 19th century.

The hepatitis B vaccine program may correlate with the outbreak of HIV in North America, but that does not in any way prove it was a cause. If you’re going to make that case, you have to provide positive evidence that this actually occurred.

It’s incredibly unlikely that there’s a sound argument to be made for any of this, but if any of you think you can do it, then do it. All I’ve seen posted so far are logical fallacy upon logical fallacy.

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."

http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 03/11/11 4:20am

MrSoulpower

damosuzuki said:

MrSoulPower is a one man wrecking machine on this thread. Everything I have to say just echoes his previous comments.

This really is very much like every other fringe belief (UFOs, creationism, homeopathy), and the challenge to groups making the claim is always the same. Believe whatever you like, but if you want your case to be taken seriously and not dismissed as a fringe conspiracy then provide at least some proof.

If we are to accept that AIDS was engineered for some purpose, then you have to build a plausible case with evidence. Ideally, you should present evidence equal to or greater than the evidence that shows HIV is descended from SIV through the established evolutionary ways viruses can move across species, but at the least you have to present some evidence.

Is it plausible that HIV is man made? As MrSoulpower pointed out, HIV has been identified in humans as early as 1959, and genetic tests suggest it may date back to the late 1800s, so people claiming human engineering need to show that the technology to engineer a virus for a specific purpose existed at least in 1959 and probably as early as the late 19th century.

The hepatitis B vaccine program may correlate with the outbreak of HIV in North America, but that does not in any way prove it was a cause. If you’re going to make that case, you have to provide positive evidence that this actually occurred.

It’s incredibly unlikely that there’s a sound argument to be made for any of this, but if any of you think you can do it, then do it. All I’ve seen posted so far are logical fallacy upon logical fallacy.

And this sums it up perfectly.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 03/11/11 6:23am

scatwoman

Based on findings demonstrating the simian ancestry of HIV, AIDS has been reported to be a zoonosis. However, this theory has never been proved and must seriously be questioned. Several arguments show that HIV-AIDS is not a zoonosis.

(i) If AIDS were a zoonosis, there must be evidence of AIDS being directly acquired from an animal species, as is rabies, a disease that is directly acquired from animals.

(ii) Despite long-term and frequent human exposure to SIV-infected monkeys in Africa, only 11 cross-species transmission events are known, and only four of these have resulted in significant human-to-human transmission, generating HIV-1 groups M and O and HIV-2 groups A and B. The closest relatives of SIVcpz (HIV-1 group N) and of SIVsm (HIV-2 groups C-H) are extremely rare, with only six HIV-1 group N-infected patients and only single individuals known to be infected by HIV-2 groups C-H. SIV, while capable of cross-species transmission, is thus poorly adapted for disease and epidemic spread. If AIDS were a zoonosis that is capable of significant human-to-human spread, there would be a plethora of founder subtypes and groups.

(iii) Human exposure to SIV is thousands of years old, but AIDS emerged only in the 20th century. If AIDS were a zoonosis that spread into the human population, it would have spread to the West during slave trade.

(iv) Experimental transmission of SIVs to different species of monkeys is often well controlled by the new host, showing that the virus and not the disease is transmitted. Therefore, we conclude that cross-species transmission of SIV does not in itself constitute the basis for a zoonosis. Transmission per se is not the major requirement for the generation of the AIDS epidemic. All HIVs do derive from simian species, but AIDS does not qualify as a zoonosis and this explanation cannot in itself account for the origin of AIDS epidemic.

It is important to distinguish AIDS from true zoonoses (e.g. rabies) because research is needed to understand the processes by which animal viruses cause sustained human-to-human transmission, epidemics and even pandemics. Much is known about emerging viruses, but almost nothing is known about emerging viral diseases.

shrug

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 03/11/11 6:27am

Graycap23

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 03/11/11 6:29am

scatwoman

[Edited 3/11/11 6:42am]

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 03/11/11 7:38am

MrSmoketoomuch

avatar

Graycap23 said:

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

yeah, great... and Ken Ham has dedicated his life to Creationism research. so what??

...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT!

you handpick a guy who incidentially agrees with your conspiracy ideas. and reject thousands of others who also dedicated their life to this research but come to different conclusions... why pick HIM??? this makes as much sense as Eternaldragon handpicking scientists who agree with his religious faith

we asked Eternaldragon to bring hard evidence. he couldn't....

we ask you to bring hard evidence. you can't....

you both just "trust" selected guys.....

JACK SHIT

[Edited 3/11/11 7:42am]

If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 03/11/11 7:59am

Graycap23

MrSmoketoomuch said:

Graycap23 said:

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

yeah, great... and Ken Ham has dedicated his life to Creationism research. so what??

...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT!

you handpick a guy who incidentially agrees with your conspiracy ideas. and reject thousands of others who also dedicated their life to this research but come to different conclusions... why pick HIM??? this makes as much sense as Eternaldragon handpicking scientists who agree with his religious faith

we asked Eternaldragon to bring hard evidence. he couldn't....

we ask you to bring hard evidence. you can't....

you both just "trust" selected guys.....

JACK SHIT

[Edited 3/11/11 7:42am]

Unlike some folks......I do my HOMEWORK.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 03/11/11 8:21am

paisleypark4

avatar

scatwoman said:

[Edited 3/11/11 6:42am]

Very very intresting..just as much as the New York and San Francisco epidemic. No one can disprove that, and those files are classified and are not released to the public for examination.
Download all the shit hop that you can for your kids, neices, nephews, and their friends also. That will prevent them from going out and buying it and will prevent some shit hop sales. Every little bit helps - Andy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemus
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 03/11/11 8:30am

MrSoulpower

Graycap23 said:

MrSmoketoomuch said:

yeah, great... and Ken Ham has dedicated his life to Creationism research. so what??

...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT!

you handpick a guy who incidentially agrees with your conspiracy ideas. and reject thousands of others who also dedicated their life to this research but come to different conclusions... why pick HIM??? this makes as much sense as Eternaldragon handpicking scientists who agree with his religious faith

we asked Eternaldragon to bring hard evidence. he couldn't....

we ask you to bring hard evidence. you can't....

you both just "trust" selected guys.....

JACK SHIT

[Edited 3/11/11 7:42am]

Unlike some folks......I do my HOMEWORK.

I don't think you've done your homework on this. You only posted someone else's link, but you have yet to present your own thoughts and, most importantly, some strong evidence for your thesis. wink

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 03/11/11 8:32am

MrSoulpower

paisleypark4 said:

scatwoman said:

[Edited 3/11/11 6:42am]

Very very intresting..just as much as the New York and San Francisco epidemic. No one can disprove that, and those files are classified and are not released to the public for examination.

Which automatically serves as definite proof for your thesis that AIDS is manmade, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts this thesis?

Let's start with a simple argument. If AIDS was manmade, how do you explain the mutation of HIV-1 from the SI-Virus? That's a key argument which you refuse to address.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 03/11/11 8:35am

Graycap23

MrSoulpower said:

Graycap23 said:

Unlike some folks......I do my HOMEWORK.

I don't think you've done your homework on this. You only posted someone else's link, but you have yet to present your own thoughts and, most importantly, some strong evidence for your thesis. wink

Interesting............

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 03/11/11 8:35am

MrSoulpower

MrSmoketoomuch said:

Graycap23 said:

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

yeah, great... and Ken Ham has dedicated his life to Creationism research. so what??

...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT! ...means JACK SHIT!

you handpick a guy who incidentially agrees with your conspiracy ideas. and reject thousands of others who also dedicated their life to this research but come to different conclusions... why pick HIM??? this makes as much sense as Eternaldragon handpicking scientists who agree with his religious faith

we asked Eternaldragon to bring hard evidence. he couldn't....

we ask you to bring hard evidence. you can't....

you both just "trust" selected guys.....

JACK SHIT

[Edited 3/11/11 7:42am]

Exactly .. nobody here has managed to provide scientifc evidence against the SIV/HIV mutation. All that has been presented here so far in support of the "manmade thesis" is personal conclusions drawn on selective information, often taken out of context, and unrelated events.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 03/11/11 8:48am

MrSoulpower

scatwoman said:

Based on findings demonstrating the simian ancestry of HIV, AIDS has been reported to be a zoonosis. However, this theory has never been proved and must seriously be questioned.

Several arguments show that HIV-AIDS is not a zoonosis.

(i) If AIDS were a zoonosis, there must be evidence of AIDS being directly acquired from an animal species, as is rabies, a disease that is directly acquired from animals.

(ii) Despite long-term and frequent human exposure to SIV-infected monkeys in Africa, only 11 cross-species transmission events are known, and only four of these have resulted in significant human-to-human transmission, generating HIV-1 groups M and O and HIV-2 groups A and B. The closest relatives of SIVcpz (HIV-1 group N) and of SIVsm (HIV-2 groups C-H) are extremely rare, with only six HIV-1 group N-infected patients and only single individuals known to be infected by HIV-2 groups C-H. SIV, while capable of cross-species transmission, is thus poorly adapted for disease and epidemic spread. If AIDS were a zoonosis that is capable of significant human-to-human spread, there would be a plethora of founder subtypes and groups.

(iii) Human exposure to SIV is thousands of years old, but AIDS emerged only in the 20th century. If AIDS were a zoonosis that spread into the human population, it would have spread to the West during slave trade.

(iv) Experimental transmission of SIVs to different species of monkeys is often well controlled by the new host, showing that the virus and not the disease is transmitted. Therefore, we conclude that cross-species transmission of SIV does not in itself constitute the basis for a zoonosis. Transmission per se is not the major requirement for the generation of the AIDS epidemic. All HIVs do derive from simian species, but AIDS does not qualify as a zoonosis and this explanation cannot in itself account for the origin of AIDS epidemic.

It is important to distinguish AIDS from true zoonoses (e.g. rabies) because research is needed to understand the processes by which animal viruses cause sustained human-to-human transmission, epidemics and even pandemics. Much is known about emerging viruses, but almost nothing is known about emerging viral diseases.

shrug

I began addressing these points individually, but then stopped - it's a waste of time. Why? Because the burden of proof is not on me, but on those who claim that the HI-Virus is manmade and was spread with the purpose of population control. None of these points above are evidence for that thesis ... all that list above does is give reasons why AIDS is not a zoonosis - but these points in themselves are only speculation. They are good points - but again, only speculation and they don't serve as evidence for the "manmade" thesis.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 03/11/11 8:54am

MrSoulpower

Graycap23 said:

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

Dr. John Coleman, the constitutional scholar and conspiracy theorist? Really?

You're taking his perspective on AIDS and the HI-Virus over the research by thousands of professional scientist who have dedicated their careers to AIDS research?

Coleman is not even a biologist!

falloff

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 03/11/11 9:02am

Graycap23

MrSoulpower said:

Graycap23 said:

Dr. John Coleman has dedicated his life 2 his research.

I'll take his perspective over any one else's on this subject.

Dr. John Coleman, the constitutional scholar and conspiracy theorist? Really?

You're taking his perspective on AIDS and the HI-Virus over the research by thousands of professional scientist who have dedicated their careers to AIDS research?

Coleman is not even a biologist!

falloff

I'm talking about his ENTIRE research.............genius.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 03/11/11 9:11am

JoeTyler

avatar

I also think that the virus was completely man made. A rather efficient ( & cruel) method of human population control, specially in the third world.

[Edited 3/11/11 9:12am]

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 03/11/11 9:11am

MrSoulpower

Graycap23 said:

MrSoulpower said:

Dr. John Coleman, the constitutional scholar and conspiracy theorist? Really?

You're taking his perspective on AIDS and the HI-Virus over the research by thousands of professional scientist who have dedicated their careers to AIDS research?

Coleman is not even a biologist!

falloff

I'm talking about his ENTIRE research.............genius.

Which consists of ...?

Whatever his "research" is (can you tell me what he got his doctor title for?), how does it overrule the research of thousands of biologists, actual scientists, who agree that HIV has mutated from the SI-Virus?

Ridiculous.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 03/11/11 9:15am

Graycap23

MrSoulpower said:

Graycap23 said:

I'm talking about his ENTIRE research.............genius.

Which consists of ...?

Whatever his "research" is (can you tell me what he got his doctor title for?), how does it overrule the research of thousands of biologists, actual scientists, who agree that HIV has mutated from the SI-Virus?

Ridiculous.

I see u have NOT changed a bit.

Happy hunting.......don't hurt yourself laughing 2 hard.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 03/11/11 9:26am

MrSoulpower

Graycap23 said:

MrSoulpower said:

Which consists of ...?

Whatever his "research" is (can you tell me what he got his doctor title for?), how does it overrule the research of thousands of biologists, actual scientists, who agree that HIV has mutated from the SI-Virus?

Ridiculous.

I see u have NOT changed a bit.

Happy hunting.......don't hurt yourself laughing 2 hard.

I see you haven't changed either biggrin

Still posting cryptic messages and shying away from responding to questions. But thanks for starting this thread .. It's an interesting discussion. I just wish you'd contribute more to your argument.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 03/11/11 10:35am

scatwoman

MrSoulpower said:

scatwoman said:

Based on findings demonstrating the simian ancestry of HIV, AIDS has been reported to be a zoonosis. However, this theory has never been proved and must seriously be questioned.

Several arguments show that HIV-AIDS is not a zoonosis.

(i) If AIDS were a zoonosis, there must be evidence of AIDS being directly acquired from an animal species, as is rabies, a disease that is directly acquired from animals.

(ii) Despite long-term and frequent human exposure to SIV-infected monkeys in Africa, only 11 cross-species transmission events are known, and only four of these have resulted in significant human-to-human transmission, generating HIV-1 groups M and O and HIV-2 groups A and B. The closest relatives of SIVcpz (HIV-1 group N) and of SIVsm (HIV-2 groups C-H) are extremely rare, with only six HIV-1 group N-infected patients and only single individuals known to be infected by HIV-2 groups C-H. SIV, while capable of cross-species transmission, is thus poorly adapted for disease and epidemic spread. If AIDS were a zoonosis that is capable of significant human-to-human spread, there would be a plethora of founder subtypes and groups.

(iii) Human exposure to SIV is thousands of years old, but AIDS emerged only in the 20th century. If AIDS were a zoonosis that spread into the human population, it would have spread to the West during slave trade.

(iv) Experimental transmission of SIVs to different species of monkeys is often well controlled by the new host, showing that the virus and not the disease is transmitted. Therefore, we conclude that cross-species transmission of SIV does not in itself constitute the basis for a zoonosis. Transmission per se is not the major requirement for the generation of the AIDS epidemic. All HIVs do derive from simian species, but AIDS does not qualify as a zoonosis and this explanation cannot in itself account for the origin of AIDS epidemic.

It is important to distinguish AIDS from true zoonoses (e.g. rabies) because research is needed to understand the processes by which animal viruses cause sustained human-to-human transmission, epidemics and even pandemics. Much is known about emerging viruses, but almost nothing is known about emerging viral diseases.

shrug

I began addressing these points individually, but then stopped - it's a waste of time. Why? Because the burden of proof is not on me, but on those who claim that the HI-Virus is manmade and was spread with the purpose of population control. None of these points above are evidence for that thesis ... all that list above does is give reasons why AIDS is not a zoonosis - but these points in themselves are only speculation. They are good points - but again, only speculation and they don't serve as evidence for the "manmade" thesis.

It's all speculation at present so until its origins are known for sure there's no harm in offering an alternate point of view.

Knowing the nefarious practices of government we should at best be suspicious.

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 03/11/11 10:47am

scatwoman

The 1959 HIV Sequence Discovery

In the interest of facilitating progress on this issue, much publicity has been given to the notion that HIV was discovered in a 1959 blood sample from Leopoldville, Zaire;
and that scientific consensus holds 1931 as the approximate date of HIV origination.

These superstitions have led to common, yet false, declarations that HIV/AIDS originated well before the polio vaccination era and the Special Virus Cancer Program (SVCP) that much evidence below links to the “punctuated origin” of AIDS.

For the record, according to the authors of the 1959 discovery, they never found, nor alleged to have found, HIV, or anything like a full virus. According to these authors, even,

“attempts to amplify HIV-1 fragments of >300 base pairs (bp) were unsuccessful,... However, after numerous attempts, four shorter sequences were obtained” that only represented small portions of two of the six genes of the complete AIDS virus.

This is why Gao et al, referred to the 1959 sequences as,

“the oldest trace of the AIDS pandemic... although the precise timing and circumstance of early events in the SIVcpz/HIV-1 zoonosis remain obscure.”

[Editor’s note for the lay reader, “SIVcpz” is short for “simian immunodeficiency virus from the chimpanzee.” This is know to be the closest viral relative to the human AIDS virus, HIV-1.]

Unfortunately, regarding the 1959 sequences, Zhu et al., left much room for misinterpretation if not wild speculation by stating that given the,

“‘starburst phylogeny,’ HIV-1 was probably introduced into humans shortly before that time frame, about a decade or two earlier than previously estimated...”

They speculated the zoonosis might have occurred “considerably earlier than the late 1940s.” Obviously, this account is irrelevant to “the extraordinary synchrony in the 1970s of ten or more distinguishable epidemics” discovered by Myers et al.

Therefore, this later group of researchers concluded that, with the exception of the 1959 sequences suggesting viral ancestry,

“Clinical, serological and molecular retrospective studies have all failed to produce any evidence of AIDS or HIV prior to the 1970s.”

As Myers et al., had initially advanced, the early to mid-1970s “Big Bang” origin of HIV/AIDS is further supported by most recent scientific evidence.

As if repeating false assumptions would alter historic and scientific facts, many contemporary investigators, like those representing AI’s HIV/AIDS Task Force, continue to imply the SIV to HIV zoonosis occurred on or before 1959. Many natural evolution theory evangelists continue to cite the now disproven “cut hunter” theory to explain the origin of the pandemic.

Reflecting on Zhu et al’s position, however, they simply concluded that the major-group viruses that dominate the global AIDS pandemic at present shared a common ancestor in the 1940s or the early 1950s.

However, given confounding factors, including the likelihood of viral gene recombination during the manufacture and testing of the HB vaccine, like Korber et al.’s speculation discussed in the next section, the 1959 “isolate” may hold little, if any, relevance in determining the origin of HIV/AIDS.

Suffice it to say, no one has ever found a virus predating the SVCP and the late 1970s.

At best they found fragments of what may have been the complete virus, but more likely pieces of a progenitor virus they called “a common ancestor” that dated back to “the 1940s or the early 1950s.” These and other portions of this “common ancestor” may have existed for centuries if not millennia. Again, this evidence is irrelevant when considering the 1970s “punctuated [iatrogenic] event” recently determined to be undisputable scientific fact.

More importantly, as Zhu and Ho et al., concluded,

“the role of large-scale vaccination campaigns, perhaps with multiple uses of non-sterilized needles, should be carefully examined,...” as contributing to the sudden emergence of HIV/AIDS in North America and Africa simultaneously during the late 1970s.

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 03/11/11 11:03am

MrSoulpower

scatwoman said:

MrSoulpower said:

I began addressing these points individually, but then stopped - it's a waste of time. Why? Because the burden of proof is not on me, but on those who claim that the HI-Virus is manmade and was spread with the purpose of population control. None of these points above are evidence for that thesis ... all that list above does is give reasons why AIDS is not a zoonosis - but these points in themselves are only speculation. They are good points - but again, only speculation and they don't serve as evidence for the "manmade" thesis.

It's all speculation at present so until its origins are known for sure there's no harm in offering an alternate point of view.

Knowing the nefarious practices of government we should at best be suspicious.

I don't disagree. But the fact remains that there is much more evidence and a general consensus in the science community for a mutation from SIV to HIV than for the manmade theory - which is why the supporters of this theory on this thread are suspiciously quiet when asked to provide evidence or even just explain how the SIV/HIV mutation affects the credibility of their theory ..

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 03/11/11 11:42am

scatwoman

The 1931 AIDS Origin Assumption and Viral Recombination

Regarding the 1931 estimated date of HIV’s origin advanced by Korber et al. (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.

Yet, despite these facts, iatrogenic theory opponents who have secured a gross 'burden of proof” advantage in the AIDS origin debate, repeatedly reference this group’s work, along with the frequently misrepresented work of Zhu, et al. concerning the 1959 sequence discovery.

Again, the “punctuated origin” of HIV/AIDS determined by Myers et al., can only explain the nearly simultaneous emergence of ten separate, though related, AIDS epidemics in Africa during the early 1970s, that were well established by 1976.


Lending further credence to the theory that early hepatitis B vaccine trials provided the “punctuated event,” Korber et al wrote of anticipated errors in their 1931 determination using linear or recombinant evolutionary models due to “unnatural” or iatrogenic events inciting viral recombination.

They wrote ,

“If there was a concentration of such recombinants during just one period of sampling, the effect on the timing estimate would be unpredictable.”

Thus, if the “punctuated origin event” advanced by Myers et al, had been the passage of HB virus from polio vaccinated humans to chimpanzees then back to humans, with the additional risk of recombination from pooling hundreds of infected serum samples prior to additional viral recombinant transfers via the HB vaccines given to human subjects in New York City and sub-Saharan Africa, then this might best explain the origin of HIV/AIDS and render Korber et al’s 1931 projection inconsequential.

In summary, the determinations reached by Korber et al., and Ho et al., of possible dates for the origin of HIV-1, 1931 and 1959 respectively, have been adequately clarified elsewhere.

“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

[Edited 3/11/11 11:43am]

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 03/11/11 11:57am

scatwoman

“Burden of Proof” and the Origin of AIDS

The most vocal opponent of the OPV and HB vaccine theories of HIV/AIDS origination is Dr. John Moore, affiliated with Rockefeller University’s Aaron Diamond Research Center in New York.

As reported in Medical Hypothesis, following a presentation advancing the HB vaccine theory of HIV/AIDS at the XI International Conference on AIDS, in 1996, Dr. Moore flippantly rebuked this thesis in the Canadian press. A few years later, he did the same regarding the Edward Hooper’s book, The River, which he alleged was historically inaccurate, potentially damaging to the public’s trust in western medicine, and harmful to his colleagues “efforts to make AIDS vaccines for use in Africa.”


When this author personally contacted Dr . Moore in an effort to begin scientific discourse following his Canadian press interview, Moore refused any formal discussion.

Responding later to prodding, he wrote me from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center saying,

“I explicitly denied you an interview when you requested one... I said to you that I had ‘no interest’ in you... grotesque theories... For the record, I know what your views are, and I reject them. Indeed, I dismiss them as uninteresting, incorrect and downright stupid.”

In the Vancouver Sun, Moore was further quoted as saying,

“HIV is transmitted from monkeys to humans. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s hard scientific reality.”

In fact, according to scientific consensus, the defining zoonosis for the origin of HIV occurred between chimpanzees and humans, not monkeys.

It should be noted that Dr. Moore’s institutional benefactors include
the Rockefeller family which, along with the Rockefeller Foundation and its institutional affiliate - the Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York - has heavily invested in viral cancer research, vaccine developments, propaganda programs, population control efforts, and the Merck pharmaceutical company in particular. Thus, Moore’s bias is strongly suggested.

Worse yet, history shows that soon after Dr. Gallo’s alleged “discovery” of the AIDS virus in 1984, Dr. Moore co-directed the only official effort to examine Merck’s HB vaccine for “fear of possible AIDS transmission.”
His principle co-investigator was Dr. B.J. Poiesz at the State University of New York.

Dr. Poiesz, their paper noted, had worked closely with Dr. Gallo in isolating the “type-C” cancer virus associated with lymphomas during the mid to late-1970s. Their group of researchers included “anonymous CDC authors” who, for unspecified reasons, omitted the centrally important New York City and African HB vaccine recipients from their analysis.

Adding insult to this injury, the team’s conclusions were entirely inconsistent with earlier epidemiological determinations and serological measures.

Reinforcing the observance of such political bias and tainted science in this field of inquiry is the conclusion reached by several featured speakers at the Royal Society’s meeting in London. They addressed the “burden of proof” required of iatrogenic versus natural AIDS origin theorists.
These experts protested the unfair unscientific advantage that has been historically given to outspoken natural evolution theorists, such as Dr. Moore, who have been curiously exempt from having to substantiate their obviously flawed claims and hypotheses.

Ironically, despite this, their unproven misguided theories remain widely accepted as supposed fact.

The only remedy such deception is updated knowledge regarding the advanced genetic analyses that have seriously undermined arguments for isolated viral leaps that cannot adequately explain the source of AIDS and the “sunburst phylogeny” of HIV’s earliest African strains.

In the wake of the Royal Society’s symposium, theories that now appear tenuous, if not ludicrous, include isolated parenteral (i.e., skin piercing) injuries (e.g., the “cut hunter theory”), nutritional exposures, population movements, and climatic variations that are alleged to have led to isolated zoonotic events followed years later, evolutionarily, by the spreading plague.

Alternatively, many participants at the conference concluded that,

"the transfer of SIV to human beings was probably connected with unprecedented medical activity in Africa in the 20th century.

"The Pentagon controls every word and image the American people reads or sees in mass media."
Richard Perle 2004, at a press conference in the Pentagon.
doody
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 03/11/11 12:11pm

NoVideo

avatar

This is an interesting discussion and I don't really know much about it, but is it plausible that the virus itself was not manmade but that it's spread was suddenly (and probably accidentally) facilitated by the vaccine trials?

* * *

Prince's Classic Finally Expanded
The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue

http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 03/11/11 12:26pm

paisleypark4

avatar

MrSoulpower said:

paisleypark4 said:

How does this quote above support your conspiracy theory? It doesn't. All it does it point out that the AIDS pandemic in the U.S. started among gay men in America. That does not support the theory that AIDS was manmade and is used for population control.

The same site you took the quote from also explains why the pandemic first spread among younger gay men - for various reasons. Because there is a higher risk of getting the HI-Virus through anal sex, because at the time, gay men had more partners, because young gay men usually have a higher income due to their lack of children and they travel more due to their above average income, which helped the virus spread. It is all very clearly laid out on that website, yet you copy and paste a quote, take it out of context and claim that it supports your theory - when it doesn't.

Wow, so from off the top of your head..without factual links to say that a gay man easily travels around the world, contacted the disease that way..especially from Africa? So what about the thousands of men of whom all of a sudden contacted this disease this way..whom all were tested for Hiv through these vaccinations that were also tested on chimps BEFORE they were dministered to humans. It does not seem odd that this happened at once? I did not take it out of context..they stated a fact..which supported my 'conspiracy theory'.

It is true that it is not known how exactly the virus first spread to humans. But there are many arguments for the so called bushmeat theory ... But again, just because there are still unanswered questions, you cannot automatically assume that AIDS is manmade and brush aside all known facts - especially when you still have failed to present a single verifiable fact for your theory.

Well when most of society sees that gay men were the 'leaders' of Aids..there is a start to all of this somewhere...however when one goes to research, those files are classified so that no one will actually have facts. What is to say about that? If they don't want theories to spread, how about releasing some fact files? Now they are experimenting with Aids patients with new types of drugs ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h...035345.stm )

And you still ignore a key argument - the fact that HIV-1 is a mutation from the SI-Virus. That's not a theory, that's a fact, and this fact shatters your "manmade"-theory, unless scientists 80+ years ago already had the knowledge of how to engineer a killer virus and the foresight that overpopulation would become an issue 40+ years later. None of this makes any sense, yet you use the same methods as 9/11 "truthers" by taking certain aspects out of context, ignoring certain evidence and drawing your own conclusions about a theory for that you have no proof.

There is proof yes that it is a mutation, there is not any proof that it was transferred over to human beings in such a way however. There are only theories as to how it got there...that's when the wordplay and odd connections rollin.

Of course it can never be wrong to speculate and investigate all possibilities - and I already wrote earlier on this thread that in the 1980s, many credible scientists looked into the "manmade" theory. But they did not find evidence for that, and especially since the SIV connection was made, the overwhelming consenus in the scientific community is that the "manmade" theory is bogus.

Because it is not available to the public, we do not have the answers as to how the gay community had this virus suddenly point blank. Still to this day the fact remains those files are sealed off.

lol I had a big old elaborate reply to all of this but ..thanks to this work computer it FAILED...but Im summarizing^^^

Download all the shit hop that you can for your kids, neices, nephews, and their friends also. That will prevent them from going out and buying it and will prevent some shit hop sales. Every little bit helps - Andy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemus
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 03/11/11 12:30pm

paisleypark4

avatar

NoVideo said:

This is an interesting discussion and I don't really know much about it, but is it plausible that the virus itself was not manmade but that it's spread was suddenly (and probably accidentally) facilitated by the vaccine trials?

The fact that it was tested with those vaccines on chimps..then the same vaccinations were tested with humans, starting in Africa..then the same tests done with gay men in America probably helped spread this.
Download all the shit hop that you can for your kids, neices, nephews, and their friends also. That will prevent them from going out and buying it and will prevent some shit hop sales. Every little bit helps - Andy
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemus
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 03/11/11 12:50pm

MrSoulpower

paisleypark4 said:

Wow, so from off the top of your head..without factual links to say that a gay man easily travels around the world, contacted the disease that way..especially from Africa? So what about the thousands of men of whom all of a sudden contacted this disease this way..whom all were tested for Hiv through these vaccinations that were also tested on chimps BEFORE they were dministered to humans. It does not seem odd that this happened at once? I did not take it out of context..they stated a fact..which supported my 'conspiracy theory'.

Had you read the links I posted, you wouldn't draw the wrong conclusions. wink Gay men did not bring the virus to the United States from Africa. But gay men helped spread the virus within the U.S. and other western democracies. That's not assigning guilt, nor is it stereotyping. Demographics show that younger gay men usually have a higher living standard (due to the lack of children), which allows them to travel more. HIV is believed to have made its way to the United States from Haiti, not directly from Africa.

In regards to your question about the vaccinations - did you ever hear about a thing called coincidence? Of course this can make one suspicious, which is why back in the 1980s, many credible scientists looked into this theory. But there is simply no evidence for it, and you have not presented any actual evidence for it, nor have you presented evidence against the SIV/HIV mutation.

Well when most of society sees that gay men were the 'leaders' of Aids..there is a start to all of this somewhere...however when one goes to research, those files are classified so that no one will actually have facts. What is to say about that? If they don't want theories to spread, how about releasing some fact files? Now they are experimenting with Aids patients with new types of drugs.

Well, statistics show that at least here in the United States, gay men were "leaders of AIDS" (your words, not mine.) Of course some religious lunatics will spin this towards "punishment of God", others will use it as "proof" that homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, that has led to the stereotype that gay men spread AIDS, and in the 1980s, a popular myth was that only gay men would get AIDS. The reality is that gay men were "leaders" because back in the 1970s/early 1980s, almost nobody practised safe sex - gay or straight. But it's much easier to get the virus from anal intercourse than from vaginal intercourse, which was an important factor. The other factor was what I mentioned above - that because of an above average income, gay men traveled more, which helped to spread the virus.

There is proof yes that it is a mutation, there is not any proof that it was transferred over to human beings in such a way however. There are only theories as to how it got there...that's when the wordplay and odd connections rollin.

The fact that HIV-1 is a mutation of SIV - which you now acknowledge - is enough to shatter your theory of AIDS being "manmade." Of course the bushmeat theory is just that - a theory. But the consensus in the scientific community that supports this theory is overwhelming, because there is much evidence for it. There is, however, no solid evidence whatsoever for the "manmade" theory.

Because it is not available to the public, we do not have the answers as to how the gay community had this virus suddenly point blank. Still to this day the fact remains those files are sealed off.

Even if that is true - and I say "if", because I'd like to research this first - none of this is proof fpr the manmade thesis. It would allow room for speculation, even exploring this option in scientic research, and that has been done. But no credible scientists found any evidence for it. What you're doing is assuming. Because we don't have all the answers, it must be manmade - and let's just ignore all evidence that contradicts this theory. This reminds me of some creationists who argue that because science does not have all the answers about the birth of the universe, it must be God who created it. This argument defies all logic.

[Edited 3/11/11 12:54pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 9 <123456789>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Creation of AIDS?