Quote:
Knock yourself out:
OPV AIDS hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You posted in Tilted Paranoia; don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.
|
From your source:
Quote:
|
Data from molecular biology and phylogenetic studies contradict the OPV AIDS hypothesis; consequently, scientific consensus regards the hypothesis as disproven,[3][4][5][6] with an article in the journal Nature describing the hypothesis as "refuted".[7]
|
Strange Famous: I did not ask for sources supporting the theory that AIDS in man-made. What I asked for was a source for your assertion that such a theory is widely held. Since you are in the habit of claiming things are "common knowledge" or "widely known" when they are in fact nothing of the kind, it stuck me as a pertinent question. However, I will now address the irrelevant source you supplied to answer a question I did not ask.
From your source:
Quote:
|
But the media and the AIDS scientists have never told the real history of AIDS and its origin to the world public.
|
And what is this "real story?" How do we know it is, in fact, "the real story?"
Quote:
|
How could a supposedly black African heterosexual disease- that some scientists claim has been around for decades or centuries in Africa- suddenly transform itself into an exclusively white male homosexual disease in America, and at a time when AIDS was unknown in Africa?
|
There is no such thing as a "Black heterosexual disease" or "white male homosexual disease." Disease is simply disease. AIDS migrated from hetero- to homosexual persons and back again the same way all such illnesses do: sexual contact between bisexual persons.
Quote:
|
Russian scientists had worked hand in hand with biological warfare scientists in the transfer of viruses and virus-infected tissue into various non-human primates (monkeys, apes, chimps) during the 1970s before AIDS appeared.
|
Unsourced, but hardly unsurprising. Scientists work with scientists all the time.
Quote:
|
With improved international relationships, the Russian accusation vanished.
|
Likewise the Soviet accusations of the US Gov't poisoning the water supply in Afghanistan, along with many other equally ridiculous accusations made by the Soviet Gov't during the Cold War years. The sudden disappearance of a piece of propaganda is not evidence.
Quote:
|
Evidence linking the introduction of HIV into gays and blacks via vaccine experiments and programs in the late 1970s has been totally ignored in favor of the politically correct theory claiming that HIV originated in chimpanzees in the African rain forest, and that HIV "jumped species" into the African population around 1930 or even earlier.
|
What evidence? Evidence which is frequently alluded to, but never revealed or sourced, is also known as bullshit.
Quote:
|
A decade before AIDS, the first of five recorded epidemics of "simian AIDS" erupted in a colony of stump-tailed macaques housed in a primate lab at Davis, California. Most of the macaques died
|
Recorded where? What lab?
Quote:
|
In 1974 veterinarians actually created an AIDS-like disease when newborn chimps were removed from their mothers and weaned exclusively on virus-infected milk from cows infected with "bovine C-type virus." Within a year the chimps died of leukemia and pneumocystis pneumonia (the "gay pneumonia" of AIDS). Both diseases had never been observed in chimps before this virus-transfer experiment.
|
Unsourced and unverifiable.
Quote:
|
Also downplayed is the laboratory creation of feline leukemia and "cat AIDS" by the transfer of HIV-like cat retroviruses in the mid-1970s.
|
Unsourced and unverifiable. If FIV was created in a laboratory, as the author alleges to know, where was it? When? "The mid-1970s" is not workable here: he's claiming detailed knowledge of this.
Quote:
|
All this man-made creation of AIDS in laboratory animals directly preceded the "mysterious" 1979 introduction of HIV into gay men, the most hated minority in America.
|
Assumes a foregone conclusion: that AIDS was introduced. Unproven, unsourced, and unverifiable.
I could go on, Strange, but this "source" of yours is a joke, besides being irrelevant to the question I asked in the first place. It keeps insisting that certain things happened simply as a matter of course, without providing any evidence that they did. Put bluntly, this source states that the sky is brown because a meteorite destroyed Madagascar in 1996, but without any further elaboration or proof of any of the alleged facts. As a lawyer would say, this entire source is an exercise in assuming facts not in evidence.