-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
aids?
- Thread starter HelpMe
- Start date
Here is some information that I found from a few sources (I didn't know many of these facts):
We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid- to
late 1970s. From 1979-1981 rare types of pneumonia, cancer, and other illnesses were
being reported by doctors in Los Angeles and New York among a number of male patients
who had sex with other men. These were conditions not usually found in people with healthy
immune systems.
The first case of AIDS was recorded in 1981 in the United States. However no one really knows where it originated.
We do know by clear evidence that AIDS is caused by the Virus HIV
(Human Immunodefiency Virus). Because the HIV virus causes AIDS, we need to look at it as the origin.
HIV is part of a family of Viruses called Lentiviruses, which have been found in a large number of primates.
These other Lentiviruses are known as Simian Immunodefiency Virus (SIV).
Because there are certain similarities between SIV and the two types of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2, we now know that
HIV is a descendent of SIV. HIV-2 is connected to a SIV known as (SIVsm), coming from the sooty mangabey monkey.
Also known as the green monkey, the sooty mangabey monkey lives in western Africa. HIV-1 is the more lethal of the two,
and is only slightly related to (SIVcpz), which is known to infect Chimpanzees.
We have known for a long time that some viruses are able to pass from animal to human. There are many theories
as to how HIV was passed from the monkey to the human. One is that a human killed a chimp with SIV and ate it for food.
Another was that HIV was transferred into a human through a medical experiment.
For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared
in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates.
Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered
the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies
of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source
of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population
when hunters became exposed to infected blood.
For more information on this see this link:
http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/hivorigin.htm
There is very little evidence as to when the transfer took place, or when it started spreading.
At this point it is clear that it first emerged in the middle of the twentieth century and over time it developed into the
disease we now know as AIDS. Several factors may have contributed to the sudden spread include; the blood industry,
international travel, and rise in intravenous drug use over the past several decades.
Although the scientific evidence may suggest otherwise, several other theories have developed about the origin of
the virus. Some may suggest that HIV was made by the CIA while others believe it was genetically engineered.
Until we find the actual origin of the Virus it is very difficult to develop a cure.
We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid- to
late 1970s. From 1979-1981 rare types of pneumonia, cancer, and other illnesses were
being reported by doctors in Los Angeles and New York among a number of male patients
who had sex with other men. These were conditions not usually found in people with healthy
immune systems.
The first case of AIDS was recorded in 1981 in the United States. However no one really knows where it originated.
We do know by clear evidence that AIDS is caused by the Virus HIV
(Human Immunodefiency Virus). Because the HIV virus causes AIDS, we need to look at it as the origin.
HIV is part of a family of Viruses called Lentiviruses, which have been found in a large number of primates.
These other Lentiviruses are known as Simian Immunodefiency Virus (SIV).
Because there are certain similarities between SIV and the two types of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2, we now know that
HIV is a descendent of SIV. HIV-2 is connected to a SIV known as (SIVsm), coming from the sooty mangabey monkey.
Also known as the green monkey, the sooty mangabey monkey lives in western Africa. HIV-1 is the more lethal of the two,
and is only slightly related to (SIVcpz), which is known to infect Chimpanzees.
We have known for a long time that some viruses are able to pass from animal to human. There are many theories
as to how HIV was passed from the monkey to the human. One is that a human killed a chimp with SIV and ate it for food.
Another was that HIV was transferred into a human through a medical experiment.
For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared
in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates.
Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered
the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies
of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source
of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population
when hunters became exposed to infected blood.
For more information on this see this link:
http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/releases/hivorigin.htm
There is very little evidence as to when the transfer took place, or when it started spreading.
At this point it is clear that it first emerged in the middle of the twentieth century and over time it developed into the
disease we now know as AIDS. Several factors may have contributed to the sudden spread include; the blood industry,
international travel, and rise in intravenous drug use over the past several decades.
Although the scientific evidence may suggest otherwise, several other theories have developed about the origin of
the virus. Some may suggest that HIV was made by the CIA while others believe it was genetically engineered.
Until we find the actual origin of the Virus it is very difficult to develop a cure.
I don't believe that AIDS was created by man. I suppose I think this because I simply do not want to believe that humans would create such a horrible thing.
Biological diseases that emerge naturally are generally more "efficient," though, in that they spread and kill quickly. I am very happy that AIDS doesn't cause quick death, of course, but in terms of natural viruses, it's odd in its long incubation. I'm not that learned on viruses, though.
Does the government practice eugenics? Well, to some extent. There have been recent cases where a court has decided to have someone sterilized to prevent further reproduction. Eugenics in its most structured form hasn't been around since the first half of the century though, I'd say.
Biological diseases that emerge naturally are generally more "efficient," though, in that they spread and kill quickly. I am very happy that AIDS doesn't cause quick death, of course, but in terms of natural viruses, it's odd in its long incubation. I'm not that learned on viruses, though.
Does the government practice eugenics? Well, to some extent. There have been recent cases where a court has decided to have someone sterilized to prevent further reproduction. Eugenics in its most structured form hasn't been around since the first half of the century though, I'd say.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i am using the word eugenics to be tender on the subject.on a more serious note, it is often rather taboo since hitler showed us all to clearly what could be made of it.
The Pentagon thought it possible and wanted to create an AIDS- like virus in 1969 and asked Congress for the money to do so (MacArthur's testimony before the House Subcommittee, July 9, 1969)...In the meantime official documentation has been discovered which proves that the Pentagon requested 10 million dollars as early as 1969 for the purpose of developing a virus that would destroy the human immune system, i.e. a synthetic AIDS-like virus...
in the Library of Congress. On June 9, 1969, Dr. D. M. MacArthur, then Deputy
Director of Research and Technology for the Dept. of Defense, told the House Subcommittee on Appropriations:
"Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly,
and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10
years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological
agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no
natural immunity could have been acquired...a new infective
microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects
from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of
these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the
immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to
maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease...A
research program to explore the feasibility of this could be
completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million."...
Neither the government nor the press nor the scientific community has made any effort to bring the above facts to the attention of the public, much less investigate their possible significance...
I am not convinced that there is any conclusive evidence of HIV before the first diagnosis in 1981. Segal attempts to debunk much of this evidence in his book (AIDS: Die Spur fuehrt ins Pentagon, Verlag Neuer Weg, Kaninenberghoehe 2, 45136 Essen, Germany, 1990), which unfortunately has still not appeared in English...
Therefore, it seems quite possible to me that SIV, for example, was discovered long before 1985, and could have been one of the original components (rather than visna, as Segal contends) of an artifically produced HIV...
From what all my correspondents have said, I am convinced that HIV can be synthesized in the laboratory NOW. This seems to be generally known by experts, but it is still a secret, I think, as far as the public is concerned...
Segal quotes from a document presented by a Pentagon official named Donald MacArthur on June 9, 1969, to a Congressional committee, in which $10 million is requested
to develop, over the next 5 to 10 years, a new, contagious microorganism which would destroy the human immune system...
The importance of population control to the US government is well illustrated by a secret document prepared under the direction of Henry Kissinger in 1974 called "National Security Study Memorandum 200."It was not declassified until 1989 and finally released by the National Archives in 1990--16 years after completion (12/10/74). The very fact that this document was classified is a good example of how fascistic the notion of "national security"has become. How could such a document endanger national security, and why shouldn't American citizens have a right to read it? The answer is stated clearly in the document itself. The government's concern with Third World population growth might be interpreted as "imperialistic"...
this is the source of my curiosity.
all hiv is not the same, as i'm sure you know.so if you mean hiv-2, then could you clarify and give a reputable source?linwood said:
The Pentagon thought it possible and wanted to create an AIDS- like virus in 1969 and asked Congress for the money to do so (MacArthur's testimony before the House Subcommittee, July 9, 1969)...In the meantime official documentation has been discovered which proves that the Pentagon requested 10 million dollars as early as 1969 for the purpose of developing a virus that would destroy the human immune system, i.e. a synthetic AIDS-like virus...
in the Library of Congress. On June 9, 1969, Dr. D. M. MacArthur, then Deputy
Director of Research and Technology for the Dept. of Defense, told the House Subcommittee on Appropriations:
"Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly,
and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10
years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological
agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no
natural immunity could have been acquired...a new infective
microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects
from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of
these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the
immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to
maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease...A
research program to explore the feasibility of this could be
completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million."...
Neither the government nor the press nor the scientific community has made any effort to bring the above facts to the attention of the public, much less investigate their possible significance...
I am not convinced that there is any conclusive evidence of HIV before the first diagnosis in 1981. Segal attempts to debunk much of this evidence in his book (AIDS: Die Spur fuehrt ins Pentagon, Verlag Neuer Weg, Kaninenberghoehe 2, 45136 Essen, Germany, 1990), which unfortunately has still not appeared in English...
Therefore, it seems quite possible to me that SIV, for example, was discovered long before 1985, and could have been one of the original components (rather than visna, as Segal contends) of an artifically produced HIV...
From what all my correspondents have said, I am convinced that HIV can be synthesized in the laboratory NOW. This seems to be generally known by experts, but it is still a secret, I think, as far as the public is concerned...
Segal quotes from a document presented by a Pentagon official named Donald MacArthur on June 9, 1969, to a Congressional committee, in which $10 million is requested
to develop, over the next 5 to 10 years, a new, contagious microorganism which would destroy the human immune system...
The importance of population control to the US government is well illustrated by a secret document prepared under the direction of Henry Kissinger in 1974 called "National Security Study Memorandum 200."It was not declassified until 1989 and finally released by the National Archives in 1990--16 years after completion (12/10/74). The very fact that this document was classified is a good example of how fascistic the notion of "national security"has become. How could such a document endanger national security, and why shouldn't American citizens have a right to read it? The answer is stated clearly in the document itself. The government's concern with Third World population growth might be interpreted as "imperialistic"...
this is the source of my curiosity.
Dr. Nosophoros
Active Member
Everything on this earth was created by man/ woman, we are solely responsible for the fate of the rock we live on and ourselves. Look at old wood cuts, you will find "demons " flying out of peoples asses [literally]. AIDS is no more a modern punishment from a "GOD" as diahrreah was to the people of the middle ages that atttributed the same to "demons" (later recognized as germs or viruses by science) It's true, science is magick before science proves it to be such.
Certain actions do tend to cause problems more than others, like walking across the street without watching for traffic. If you address the actions you can deal with the problem, notice I didn't say educate people about the problem. Education isn't enough, how many lard asses do you know who still pig out.
Quoth The Raven
Half Arsed Muse
There is actually a strain of HIV that looks like - last I heard - it wont develop inot full blown Aids. There is apparently a form of the Green Monkey virus that has a faulty 9th chromosome and remains in its initial form and never develops any further.
There is a man in Australia with a strain of HIV with the same faulty chromosome. He was a blood donor and several people were infected by his blood before they started screening. He and the recipients of his blood are being watched to see if they develop full blown Aids. Last I heard - and this was probably about 5 years ago now - he had been infected for over 10 years and neither he nor the people infected by him had Aids.
Obviously it's not a cure, but it could be developed as a vaccine.
There is a man in Australia with a strain of HIV with the same faulty chromosome. He was a blood donor and several people were infected by his blood before they started screening. He and the recipients of his blood are being watched to see if they develop full blown Aids. Last I heard - and this was probably about 5 years ago now - he had been infected for over 10 years and neither he nor the people infected by him had Aids.
Obviously it's not a cure, but it could be developed as a vaccine.
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
there is instead a man, or a few. that claim to of recieved the cure as they are symptom free for years now.i do not agree with this man that aids was a conspiracy against african americans.but i do believe the tuskegee experiment was an anti-african american action on the part of the u.s. government.
http://www.boydgraves.com/news/031703.html
Tetrasil. It has a second name, which is Imusil. The patent number is 5676977
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1597.shtml
hf
http://www.boydgraves.com/news/031703.html
Tetrasil. It has a second name, which is Imusil. The patent number is 5676977
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1597.shtml
hf
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Okay, I give. What in the world did you mean by this statement? Are you saying that the posts in this thread lead you to the conclusion that AIDS was created by gay men? I read the post by HelpMe, and came away with a completely different view.desi said:
Or are you saying something else, and I'm just slow in getting your intent?
TVOR
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
HIV is a natural virus, and a very clever one at that. Part of its success in spreading through populations is its incubation time, so while it does kill its host it gives the host plenty of time to spread it around without realizing they are ill, unlike other killer viruses like Ebola.
HIV also mutates quite rapidly thus we have the two strains, HIV 1 (the origional jump from SIV/SIDS) and HIV 2 (wich I believe is the less virulent form). This fast mutation makes it difficult to develop treatments for the virus.
All killer viruses come from other animals and jump the species barrier into humans. Influenza that caused the first great pandemic came from pigs (and before that birds). SARS was origionally a bird virus. Ebola comes from monkeys and most recently the 'foamy virus' has started jumping from Apes to humans, though this virus seems to be both benign and unable to jump from person to person, so far. It strikes me are far more difficult to construct a plausible senario for human generation of the AIDS eppidemic starting in the US labs, than as a natural disease. After all the first cases of AIDS come from Africa from areas that practice bush-meat hunting. Bush-meat hunting is also responcible for most outbreaks of Ebola.
wa:do
HIV also mutates quite rapidly thus we have the two strains, HIV 1 (the origional jump from SIV/SIDS) and HIV 2 (wich I believe is the less virulent form). This fast mutation makes it difficult to develop treatments for the virus.
All killer viruses come from other animals and jump the species barrier into humans. Influenza that caused the first great pandemic came from pigs (and before that birds). SARS was origionally a bird virus. Ebola comes from monkeys and most recently the 'foamy virus' has started jumping from Apes to humans, though this virus seems to be both benign and unable to jump from person to person, so far. It strikes me are far more difficult to construct a plausible senario for human generation of the AIDS eppidemic starting in the US labs, than as a natural disease. After all the first cases of AIDS come from Africa from areas that practice bush-meat hunting. Bush-meat hunting is also responcible for most outbreaks of Ebola.
wa:do
Feathers in Hair
World's Tallest Hobbit
I'm with TVOR on this.... I'm missing something.The Voice of Reason said:
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
would you explain to me what an unnatural virus is, with an example or two?and tell me the difference, and how, if as i relay, it is made by man, would it be different?nobody ever claimed that a virus couldn't jump species, but if you have an instance such as this where it was done and for no apparrent reason a mutation occured that allowed your scenario to take place, please share.painted wolf said:
The theory hinges on the claim that the AIDS virus (HIV) is virtually identical to two other viruses: Visna, which causes a fatal disease in sheep but does not infect humans, and HTLV-I (Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus), which infects humans but is seldom fatal.
Prof. Jakob Segal, the author of the theory, says that structural analysis using genome mapping proves that HIV is more similar to Visna than to any other retrovirus. The portion (about three percent) of the HIV genome which does not correspond structurally to Visna corresponds exactly to part of the HTLV-I genome.
He notes that the symptoms of AIDS are consistent with the complementary effects of two different viruses. AIDS patients who do not die of the consequences of immune deficiency show the same damage to the brain, lungs, intestines, and kidneys that occurs in sheep affected with Visna. Combining Visna with HTLV-I would allow the virus to enter not only the macrophages of the inner organs but also the T4 lymphocytes and thus cause immune deficiency, which is exactly what AIDS does. AIDS is thus, according to Segal, essentially a variety of Visna. This has important implications for research, since a cure or vaccine might be found sooner by studying Visna in sheep than by concentrating, as at present, on monkeys.
The theory of the African origin of AIDS, that it developed in African monkeys and was transferred to man, has been abandoned by most researchers. All of the known varieties of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) are structurally so dissimilar to HIV (much less similar than HIV and Visna) that a common origin is out of the question. Furthermore, even if such a development by natural mutation were possible, it would not explain the sudden outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s, since monkeys and men have been living together in Africa since the beginning of human history.
The "Africa Legend," as it is called in a 1988 West German (Westdeutscher Rundfunk) television documentary, is further debunked by the epidemiological history of AIDS. There is no solid evidence of AIDS in Africa before 1983. The earliest documented cases of AIDS date from 1979 in New York.
Segal quotes from a document presented by a Pentagon official named Donald MacArthur on June 9, 1969, to a Congressional committee, in which $10 million is requested to develop, over the next 5 to 10 years, a new, contagious microorganism which would destroy the human immune system.
if you actually wish to oppose the theory, a good start might be to explain both the Security Study Memorandum 200 and MacArthur's testimony before the House Subcommittee, July 9, 1969.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
-but if you have an instance such as this where it was done and for no apparrent reason a mutation occured that allowed your scenario to take place, please share.
I have given several examples, Ebola, Foamy virus and SARS for example. As for what a natural virus would be, it would not be man made.
some info on the simain foamy virus jumping into humans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm
How SARS was traced back to wild animal populations where it jumped into humans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3442317.stm
The infamous Spanish Flu (first and greatest pandemic):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3455873.stm
your Jacob has quite the reputation...
http://suchbursche.de/Debunking-More-Jakob.html
Anyway the virus was traced to a particular sub-species of chimp. Reserchers discovered that one of their chimps had the human variant of HIV, dispite never being used for such reserch.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]"She had never been used in Aids research and had not received human blood products after 1969," said Dr Hahn.. Her tissue had been frozen for study perposes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
for more info on the actual history of AIDS go to :
http://www.avert.org/historyi.htm
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
for instance the earliest confirmed cases of AIDS are:[/font]
[font=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]-A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo
[/font]-HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.
[font=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]-HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
These predate and are out of the geographical area of your supposed conspiracy. You should keep up to date on the reserch and not rely on information from the 1980's. We know about such things as the Genome today and can easily unzip DNA to discover the origins of things like viruses. :bonk:
wa:do
[/font]
I have given several examples, Ebola, Foamy virus and SARS for example. As for what a natural virus would be, it would not be man made.
some info on the simain foamy virus jumping into humans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3520968.stm
How SARS was traced back to wild animal populations where it jumped into humans:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3442317.stm
The infamous Spanish Flu (first and greatest pandemic):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3455873.stm
your Jacob has quite the reputation...
http://suchbursche.de/Debunking-More-Jakob.html
Anyway the virus was traced to a particular sub-species of chimp. Reserchers discovered that one of their chimps had the human variant of HIV, dispite never being used for such reserch.
[font=Arial, Helvetica]"She had never been used in Aids research and had not received human blood products after 1969," said Dr Hahn.. Her tissue had been frozen for study perposes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm
for more info on the actual history of AIDS go to :
http://www.avert.org/historyi.htm
http://www.avert.org/origins.htm
for instance the earliest confirmed cases of AIDS are:[/font]
[font=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]-A plasma sample taken in 1959 from an adult male living in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo
[/font]-HIV found in tissue samples from a Norwegian sailor who died around 1976.
[font=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif]-HIV found in tissue samples from an American teenager who died in St. Louis in 1969.
These predate and are out of the geographical area of your supposed conspiracy. You should keep up to date on the reserch and not rely on information from the 1980's. We know about such things as the Genome today and can easily unzip DNA to discover the origins of things like viruses. :bonk:
wa:do
[/font]
HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
a response to these or the 1971 hiv flowchart would be better placed.
none of your post or links refer to the evidence i have shown you."...However, it was not necessarily clear that chimpanzees were the original reservoir for HIV-1 because chimpanzees are only rarely infected with SIVcpz...."
the claim to of now found 1 chimp with aids is myseteriously muraculous at best.neither of the links refer to a mutation in the virus during said undisputed leap as is supposedly the case with your hiv theory.
noone seriously agrees with the claims that hiv was first found in mankind before the 70's.this would discredit the idea presented at the beginning of this post, which was not responded to.why would the government want to make an aids like virus in 1969 if it already existed as you claim?
"..In January 2000, the results of a new study presented at the 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, suggested that the first case of HIV infection occurred around 1930 in West Africa. The study was carried out by Dr Bette Korber of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The estimate of 1930 (which does have a 20 year margin of error), is based on a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution..."
science is supposed to deal with facts, not complicated computer models right?trampy flight attendants is hardly not laughable.
From the tree it appears that the Chimpanzee is the source of HIV1, however, the origin of the cross-species transmission to humans is still a matter of debate amongst HIV researchers.(Copyright 2003-2004)
According to the United States, a patent for curing AIDS was issued in October, 1997.