Apocalypse Soon => Conspiracies => Topic started by: Delamorte on June 25, 2006, 08:36:12 PM

Title: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on June 25, 2006, 08:36:12 PM
Are H.I.V. & A.I.D.S.  natural or were they derived in a lab somewhere to control the population in South Africa ? If they were natural then why did we not see any cases before the 80's ? 
 I agree that promiscuity brings about the aquisition of such diseases, however I do belive that some of these diseases are man-made.
What do you think?
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Scotty on June 26, 2006, 04:08:27 PM
I have ten reasons why AIDs is man-made and is not caused by HIV that all the health company’s are wasting there millions of dollars and life’s to treat.

I have a good clip on this which explains it better then I can so here is a clip. I have a few comments myself...
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on June 27, 2006, 01:31:10 AM
May I foward this article on to others I know who have a first hand intrest ? I want to be sure it is ok with you before I do so.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Scotty on June 27, 2006, 12:06:01 PM
Fine with me :wink:
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Phantom X on June 27, 2006, 08:00:53 PM
I have heard, despite my beliefs, that its Gods way of controling the human population. You thoughts?
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: prezhorusin04 on June 27, 2006, 09:02:25 PM
A lot of evidence for the fact that it is a man-made disease, and that HIV is an unrelated "hoax", used in actuality to infect people and make money off of prescriptions to suppress false symptoms of the disease..

More information on the man-made depopulation origin of AIDS....

Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on June 27, 2006, 10:57:08 PM
What about al lthose who passed away form the disease and never received treatment, if you  say that the treatment is the actual cause then what about all those before treatment was distributed?
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: prezhorusin04 on June 28, 2006, 12:54:31 AM
Hey Delamorte, treatment as a cause, not the only source. Somehow i can see a lot of gay men going in for VD tests and treatment in the late 70's, early 80's, all of a sudden being told they have this mysterious new "HIV/AIDS" disease. Many probably having no symptoms of illness before this. Only getting sicker as their treatments are increased, especially in the early days..

The boom of AIDS in the 1980's seems far more unnatural an illness than "gay sex" which has been around for thousands of years. Look at some of the priests and young choir boys in the Catholic church. Or the Roman emperors and virtually every other civilization that has had tendencies of same sex intercourse. Or beastiality for that matter.

The Zionist run Nambla association (North American Man/Boy Love Association):
Fervent promoters of Man/Boy lovin.... :oops:

There are many middle eastern and Hindu practices along these lines as well... Or you could even take it back into the idea of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice".. Now that i thin about it, something didn't seem quite right between Batman and Robin either......

IMO, AIDS was a population reduction scheme, aimed at sexual promiscuity, and blamed on African fornication with monkeys and eating of tainted meat.. Even if it did originate in monkeys, i have little doubt it was a man made virus injected into experimental subjects...

We could even question if the Black Plague and other deadly illnesses from hundreds of years back might have been early attempts at viral warfare....... :evil:
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on June 28, 2006, 01:00:28 AM
I sincerly belive it was invented to control the population in Africa especially after the uprising against the White Land Owners who unfairly treated the people of Africa..
I don't think they had planned on the virus leaving the country tho.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Devious Viper on June 28, 2006, 04:01:55 AM
As a retrovirus, it doesn't make for a very good method of population control. If that was the aim, there are many other more suitable viruses that could have been used. Also, as the very first proven case occurred in 1959 (in the Democratic Republic of Congo) I would argue that the level of expertise necessary to artificially produce the virus was not available. The first known case in the USA was a mere 10 years later. In 1998, research was published regarding the 1959 case ( Zhu, Tuofu, Bette Korber & Andre J Nahinias. "An African HIV-1 Sequence from 1959 and Implications for the Origin of the Epidemic" Nature, 1998: 391: p. 594-597); they concluded that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s - much earlier than previously thought. Other scientists have dated the sample to an even earlier period - perhaps as far back as the end of the 19th century.

The 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in January 2000 studied a complicated computer model of HIV's evolution, which suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection could have occurred around 1930 in West Africa. The estimate of 1930 has a 15 year margin of error which would tie in with the date given above.

Until recently, the origins of the HIV-2 virus had remained relatively unexplored. HIV-2 is thought to come from the SIV in Sooty Mangabeys rather than chimpanzees, but the crossover to humans is believed to have happened in a similar way (i.e. through the butchering and consumption of monkey meat). It is far rarer, significantly less infectious and progresses more slowly to AIDS than HIV-1. As a result, it infects far fewer people, and is mainly confined to a few countries in West Africa.

By analysing samples of the two different subtypes of HIV-2 (A and B) taken from infected individuals, a group of Belgian researchers lead by Dr. Anne-Mieke Vandamme, published a report concluding that subtype A had passed into humans around 1940 and subtype B in 1945 (plus or minus 16 years). Her team of researchers also discovered that the virus had originated in Guinea-Bissau and that its spread was most likely precipitated by the independence war that took place in the country between 1963 and 1974 (Guinea-Bissau is a former Portuguese colony). Her theory was backed up by the fact that the first European cases of HIV-2 were discovered among Portuguese veterans of the war, many of whom had received blood transfusions or unsterile injections following injury, or had  frequented local prostitutes.

The "bush meat" route is almost certainly the cause: Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIVcpz and SIVsm) being transferred to humans as a result of apes and monkeys  being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds. Normally the human body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a primate to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain.

An article published in The Lancet in 2004, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to humans is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered 1% were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have lead to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans.

So how did it spread so far?

"Both national and international travel undoubtedly had a major role in the initial spread of HIV. In the US, international travel by young men making the most of the gay sexual revolution of the late 70s and early 80s would certainly have played a large part in taking the virus worldwide. In Africa, the virus would probably have been spread along truck routes and between towns and cities within the continent itself. However, it is quite conceivable that some of the early outbreaks in African nations were not started by Africans infected with the 'original' virus at all, but by people visiting from overseas where the epidemic had been growing too. The process of transmission in a global pandemic is simply too complex to blame on any one group or individual.

Much was made in the early years of the epidemic of a so-called 'Patient Zero' who was the basis of a complex "transmission scenario" compiled by Dr. William Darrow and colleagues at the Centre for Disease Control in the US. This epidemiological study showed how 'Patient O' (mistakenly identified in the press as 'Patient Zero') had given HIV to multiple partners, who then in turn transmitted it to others and rapidly spread the virus to locations all over the world. A journalist, Randy Shilts, subsequently wrote an article based on Darrow's findings, which named Patient Zero as a gay Canadian flight attendant called Gaetan Dugas. For several years, Dugas was vilified as a 'mass spreader' of HIV and the original source of the HIV epidemic among gay men. However, four years after the publication of Shilts' article, Dr. Darrow repudiated his study, admitting its methods were flawed and that Shilts' had misrepresented its conclusions.

While Gaetan Dugas was a real person who did eventually die of AIDS, the Patient Zero story was not much more than myth and scaremongering. HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel.

The Blood Industry:
As blood transfusions became a routine part of medical practice, an industry to meet this increased demand for blood began to develop rapidly. In some countries such as the USA , donors were paid to give blood, a policy that often attracted those most desperate for cash; among them intravenous drug users. In the early stages of the epidemic, doctors were unaware of how easily HIV could be spread and blood donations remained unscreened. This blood was then sent worldwide, and unfortunately most people who received infected donations went on to become HIV positive themselves.

In the late 1960's haemophiliacs also began to benefit from the blood clotting properties of a product called Factor VIII. However, to produce this coagulant, blood from hundreds of individual donors had to be pooled. This meant that a single donation of HIV+ blood could contaminate a huge batch of Factor VIII. This put thousands of haemophiliacs all over the world at risk of HIV, and many subsequently contracted the virus.

Drug Use:
The 1970s saw an increase in the availability of heroin following the Vietnam War and other conflicts in the Middle East, which helped stimulate a growth in intravenous drug use. This increased availability and together with the development of disposable plastic syringes and the establishment of 'shooting galleries' where people could buy drugs and rent equipment, provided another route through which the virus could be passed on." (Annabel Kanabus & Sarah Allen )

If there is any conspiracy about HIV/AIDS, I would suggest it is one of these:

1. We are much more at danger from viruses crossing the species barrier than the authorities are willing to let on - "bird flu" has probably killed many, many more people than official figures relate. How many post mortems have been carried out on victims that already had pre-existing conditions or were just passed off as respiratory illnesses..??

2. A huge financial and lobbying industry has grown out of the HIV/AIDS tragedies. The figures are distorted to draw a disproportionate amount of funds.

3. The powers that be on both sides don't want you to know this one simple truth: "HIV-positive" means nothing; it simply shows that your body has produced an antibody in response to a previous contact. Guess what - I'm Chickenpox-positive, Mumps-positive, Measles-positive, Epstein Barr-positive, Polio-positive (the vaccine is a live one, don't forget), Hepatitis B-positive, Yellow Fever-positive, Typhoid-positive, Typhus-positive and Japanese-B encephalitis -positive!

But I don't have any of those viruses, am not ill, and can't infect anybody else with them. I just have the antibodies.

Think about it...

~ Viper ~
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Devious Viper on June 28, 2006, 05:02:43 AM
And just as an aside, the scientific evidence shows that HIV would not have arisen had man obeyed the food laws of Leviticus, or avoided promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Morticia on June 28, 2006, 05:50:44 AM

 A journalist, Randy Shilts, subsequently wrote an article based on Darrow's findings, which named Patient Zero as a gay Canadian flight attendant called Gaetan Dugas. For several years, Dugas was vilified as a 'mass spreader' of HIV and the original source of the HIV epidemic among gay men. However, four years after the publication of Shilts' article, Dr. Darrow repudiated his study, admitting its methods were flawed and that Shilts' had misrepresented its conclusions.

While Gaetan Dugas was a real person who did eventually die of AIDS, the Patient Zero story was not much more than myth and scaremongering. HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel.

~ Viper ~

If I'm not mistaken, Randy Shilts is the author of "And the Band Played On".  It's been many years since I read it, but I recall it being so packed with information I couldn't seem to take it all in. 

There was a movie based on the book, but it contained only a fraction of the written information.

HIV and AIDS was originally known as 'the gay cancer' in the U.S., and was especially prevalent in San Francisco, which has a very large gay community.  Shilts commented in his book on the altruistic and community-serving attitudes of a lot of these men.  They were loyal donaters to blood banks, and it was after the virus started spreading to heterosexuals through blood donations that President Reagan was forced to address the problem.  A lot of the victims were hemophiliacs, one of them being the child Ryan White.

Viper is right when he says "the scientific evidence shows that HIV would not have arisen had man obeyed the food laws of Leviticus, or avoided promiscuity and sex outside of marriage."  However, that brings another question to my mind.  Gay men can contract the disease through sexual activity, but lesbians don't.   I realize that not every 'sin' will cause equal consequences to all individuals, but lesbian women seem to be passed over in this particular plague.

Nobody needs to go into the physical specifics of gay sex.  I just think it's an interesting point.

Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: The_Seeker on June 28, 2006, 10:29:46 PM
And just as an aside, the scientific evidence shows that HIV would not have arisen had man obeyed the food laws of Leviticus, or avoided promiscuity and sex outside of marriage.
Or numerous other doctrines of numerous other religions such as Islam or Buddhism.

We also must not forget that a mother with HIV or AIDs can also pass it to their child.  Being in the womb puts the potential child to be at risk for HIV/AIDs but so too does breast feeding as it too is a form of transferring bodily fluids.

And Morticia, without getting too deep into the details, it involves an sufficient spreading of bodily fluids.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on June 29, 2006, 09:16:42 PM
I had heard back in the early 90's that a company had developed a "home test kit" to was 99% accurate on finding the virus by swabbing the inside of the mouth/gums and put into a tube like an EPT test. However the F.D.A  put a quickly enforced ban on this test. Why?
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: The_Seeker on June 30, 2006, 12:06:21 AM
I can't imagine how accurate a test like that would be because as far as I know the disease isn't found within saliva.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Delamorte on July 02, 2006, 08:47:35 PM
It does carry detectable "components" of HIV (such as viral RNA and proviral DNA), but these are not infectious on their own. The environment that saliva provides is far too harsh for infectious particles to remain intact and viable.

There are a number of possible mechanisms that have been suggested, which might explain why saliva seems to be so good at destroying HIV. Specific enzymes present in saliva may be important, or the effect of antibodies in saliva. Additionally, the saliva is "hypotonic" and has a tendency to disrupt any cells which may be floating around in it. It's pretty much certain that it's the combination of these factors that mean HIV is not transmitted in saliva.
Title: Re: HIV/AIDS: Manmade?
Post by: Solstice on January 06, 2008, 10:04:05 AM
The Gay Hepatitis-B Vaccine Experiment
Conveniently lost in the history of AIDS is the gay Hepatitis-B vaccine experiment that immediately preceded the decimation of gay Americans. A "cohort" of over a thousand young gays was injected with the vaccine at the New York Blood Center in Manhattan during the period November 1978 to October 1979. Similar gay experiments were conducted in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, St. Louis, and Chicago, beginning in 1980. The AIDS epidemic broke out shortly thereafter.
The experiment was run by Wolf Szmuness, a Polish Jew born in 1919. He was a young medical student in eastern Poland when the Nazis invaded the country in 1939. His entire family perished in the Holocaust. When Poland was partitioned, Szmuness was taken prisoner and sent to Siberia.
After the war, he was allowed to finish medical school in Tomsk in central Russia. He married a Russian woman, had a daughter, and in 1959 was allowed to return to Poland where he became an expert in hepatitis.
According to June Goodfield’s account of his life in Quest for the Killers, Szmuness defected from Poland with his family in 1969, arriving penniless in New York with $15 in his pocket. Through scientific connections he found work as a laboratory technician at the New York Blood Center. Within a few years he was given his own lab at the center and was also appointed Professor of Public Health at Columbia University. By the mid-1970s, Szmuness was a world authority on hepatitis, and was invited back to Moscow in 1975 to give a scientific presentation. As a defector he was terrified to set foot back in the Soviet Union, but his colleagues assured him he would have the full protection of the U.S. State Department. His return to Russia was a scientific triumph.
In the late 1970s, Wolf Szmuness was awarded millions of dollars to undertake the most important mission of his life: the Hepatitis-B vaccine experiment. Szmuness specifically wanted to use gay men to avoid "serious legal and logistical problems." For his study he did not want monogamous men, nor men with lovers. He chose only healthy, young, responsible, intelligent, and primarily white homosexuals. The experiment was costly and he didn’t want any uncooperative or hard-to-find gays messing up his experiment. Involved in the experiment were the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Abbott Laboratories, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme. Szmuness’ experiment was hugely successful, and his vaccine was hailed as having tremendous global implications.
The Gay Plague
The links of the gay experiment to the outbreak of AIDS are obvious to anyone who wants to see the connection. Three months after the experiment began, the first cases of AIDS reported to the CDC appeared in young gay men in Manhattan in 1979. The first San Francisco AIDS case appeared in that city in September 1980, six months after the Hepatitis-B experiment started there. In June 1981 the AIDS epidemic became "official."
Were gay men given experimental vaccines contaminated with the AIDS virus? The government says no, but government agencies have a long history of covert and unethical medical experimentation, particularly with minorities. Was it simply a quirk of nature that a virus "out of Africa" would suddenly decimate the most hated minority in America?
Why did the U.S. government choose Wolf Szmuness, a Soviet-trained doctor and a recent American immigrant to head this dangerous experiment? Goodfield, who has written the definitive account of the Hepatitis-B experiment, claims Szmuness has a painful life. Confined as a political prisoner in Siberia during World War II, he was repeatedly interrogated and beaten by the Russian KGB for refusing to cooperate in spy activities. When he could not be broken, they warned him: "Say nothing of this to anyone, but remember. We will reach you anywhere in the world. No matter where you go, no matter where you try to hide, you will never be out of our grasp."
The experimental Hepatitis-B vaccine was primarily manufactured by Merck. However, during the experiment Szmuness was concerned about possible vaccine contamination. Goodfield writes, "This was no theoretical fear, contamination having been suspected in one vaccine batch made by the National Institutes of Health, though never in Merck’s."
After the Hepatitis-B experiment ended, Szmuness insisted that all thirteen thousand blood specimens donated by gay men be retained at the Blood Center for future use. Due to space requirements, it is highly unusual for any laboratory to retain so many old blood specimens. However, several years later when this blood was retested for the presence of HIV antibodies, government epidemiologists were able to detect the "introduction" and the spread of HIV into the gay community.
When asked why he was keeping so many vials of blood, Szmuness replied, "Because one day another disease may erupt and we’ll need this material." A few months after the Hepatitis-B experiment began at the Center, the first AIDS cases began to appear in gay men living in Manhattan. And the retesting of gay blood at the Blood Center proved that HIV was first introduced into the gay population of New York City sometime around 1978-1979, the same year Szmuness’ gay Hepatitis-B experiment began.
Was Szmuness psychic in his prediction that a new disease would appear in the gay community? Or did he actually know or suspect that a new, deadly virus was being introduced into the gay volunteers? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions can only be surmised. In June 1982 Szmuness died of lung cancer. In his eulogy, Aaron Kellner of the Blood Center wrote: "It is the rare physician who, like Wolf Szmuness, is given the grace to touch the lives of billions of people; those living on this planet and generations yet unborn."

Media Disinformation
With the publication of And The Band Played On in 1987, the media became obsessed with author Randy Shilts’ "Patient Zero" story. In the popular, award-winning book, a young Canadian airline steward named Gaeton Dugas is portrayed as the promiscuous gay man "who brought the AIDS virus from Paris and ignited the epidemic in North America." Shilts, who later died of AIDS, never explained where or how Dugas got his infection.
After a year of swollen lymph nodes and a rash, Dugas was finally diagnosed with AIDS-associated "gay cancer" in June 1980 in New York City. What Shilts probably did not know is that when Dugas was diagnosed in 1980, over twenty percent of the Manhattan gays in the Hepatitis-B experiment were HIV-positive. This 20% infection rate was discovered after the HIV blood test became available in 1985, and after the stored blood at the New York Blood Center was retested for HIV antibodies (JAMA, Vol. 255, pp. 2167-2172, 1986). Remarkably, these gay men had the highest recorded incidence of HIV anywhere in the world for that time! Even in African populations, where AIDS has been theorised to exist for decades, or even millennia, there were never reports of such a high incidence of HIV in 1980.
Shilts’ sensational Patient Zero story quickly became "fact." Even the AMA-sponsored American Medical News (October 23, 1987) fell for the ludicrous story, claiming that Dugas "may have brought AIDS to the United States." The media continue to promote unlikely stories about the origin of AIDS, always avoiding discussion of the idea that HIV came out of a laboratory, and always pointing the finger to black Africa.
In late 1987, the media widely reported an "old AIDS case" dating back to 1968. DNA testing of the blood and tissue was reported as HIV-positive. For the last year of his life, "Robert", a 15-year-old black boy from St. Louis, wasted away with a bizarre disease that severely bloated his legs and genitalia. His sexual preference was unknown, but his doctors tried hard to insinuate the dying boy was gay. At autopsy, internal Kaposi’s sarcoma of the rectum was discovered, along with anal warts and lacerations. And after fingering the dead boy’s rectum, the pathologist noted "a lax anal sphincter." When newer viral identification techniques were reapplied to Robert’s blood in 1990, his blood retested HIV-negative, proving that Robert never had AIDS.
In 1990 the media sensationalised another "old AIDS case," this time an unmarried English sailor who died in Manchester in 1959. When his stored tissue remains tested positive for HIV, major newspapers throughout the world used this case to again discredit the persistent rumor that AIDS was a man-made disease. The New York Times (July 24) declared:
The case also refutes the widely publicised charges made by Soviet officials several years ago that AIDS arose from a virus that had escaped from a laboratory experiment that went awry or was a biological warfare agent. The human retrovirus group to which the AIDS virus belongs was unknown at the time. Nor did scientists then have the genetic engineering techniques needed to create a new virus.
In a letter to the medical journal Lancet in January 1996, this 1959 case was ruled not to be AIDS because the DNA tests were found to be contaminated due to a laboratory error.
Despite the denial of the Times regarding the laboratory creation of new AIDS-like viruses, it was common practice during the early 1970s for virologists to alter animal viruses by inserting them into other animal species and into human tissue cells in culture. Experiments performed at Harvard in the mid-1970s by Max Essex and Donald Francis (two of the best-known AIDS experts) produced AIDS in cats with the feline leukemia retrovirus. In addition, a decade before the outbreak of AIDS in the U.S., Robert Gallo was engineering cancer-causing retroviruses and studying the effects of viral mutants and their ability to suppress the immune system. A full description of Gallo’s animal retrovirus research activities dating back to 1967 is chronicled in Emerging Viruses, AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident or Genocide? by Dr. Leonard Horowitz.