Was AIDS invented to wipe out gay men? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ASU2003 · 09-17-2010, 05:18 PM

The Origin of AIDS and HIV May Not Be What You Have Learned

This website thinks it was caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine trials in the mid 70s. The vaccine was given to gay men in NYC/SanFran/LA and men in Africa. Those demographics were at risk for Hepatitis B, so it made sense to give them the vaccine. ***Puts on conspiracy hat... I know that the government and drug company would not want to info to not be found out if it were true. Imagine the lawsuits, the lack of faith in vaccines, the knowledge that some company introduced a scary virus and put the public at risk) And I wouldn't be surprised with who was in the White House when AIDS was discovered***

That sounds more credible than an ineffective bio-weapon or the rapid escalation in cases that wouldn't occur from a cut hunter or money-banging one-off transmission (You would have seen HIV/AIDS for decades in order to get to the numbers in the 80s). The military probably would have wanted to study air-borne viri with week long gestation, but communicative, periods and 100% mortality in a month.

http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html

If you read the bottom of the page from the last bolded title down, it goes into another conspiracy theory. That the doctors in the 70s knew the Hepatitis B vaccine would cause problems with the immune system. Then there was a big campaign for gay men to get tested. The tests would give false positives for people who received the vaccine. Then they went on drugs that would kill off bone marrow and the immune system, which would cause AIDS, and make lots of money for the drug companies and doctors...

Interesting conspiracy theory for a Friday night. And exactly the type of real investigative reporting our media should be doing. I don't know what happened, but it proves you never know who to trust.

Strange Famous · 09-17-2010, 11:28 PM

To be clear, although I think already my statement was understandable to most people, I am stating that the AIDS EPIDEMIC is man made, not that the virus itself is man made.

This is "widely held" in the same way that it is widely held that the US govt murdered John F Kennedy. The proof has been hidden, and so many theories about how and why exist, but in their guts most people believe this to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

You're moving the goalposts, Strange. I asked you to support your contention that:

ie; Lots of people know something for a fact...

Your contention was that lots of people know for a fact that AIDS was man-made. The how/why of that "making" are irrelevant to the question at hand: "Is it 'widely known' that AIDS is man-made?"

You also create a false dichotomy here with this statement:

If the virus was not manufactured in some way, it was not man-made. If it -was- man-made, it would by definition have to be manufactured. Now, if you meant that the -context- of the beginning of the AIDS epidemic was man-made: ie that HIV may have been a naturally-occurring pathogen which was accidentally released into a non-native habitat (similar to Africanized bees in the 1950s), this passage might make some sense.

You have not answered my original question, Strange, so I'll ask again:

Please provide some source to back up your contention that it is widely known that AIDS/HIV was man-made.

The_Dunedan · 09-18-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

This is "widely held" in the same way that it is widely held that the US govt murdered John F Kennedy. The proof has been hidden, and so many theories about how and why exist, but in their guts most people believe this to be true.

And you know this....how? Where do you get your notion that most people believe this to be true?

-That- is my question, Strange. You have a habit of declaring that huge percentages of people agree with you on a given topic (99% of TFP, etc), and then being unwilling or unable to substantiate your claims of support. You simply keep falling back on "everyone knows" and "it's common knowledge" and "XYZ(huge) percent agree with me" rather than providing support for any of the things you state. If you're going to claim that huge percentages of people agree with you, you need to be able to substantiate those claims or else they're going to be treated as nothing more that hot air, especially since you have a distinct propensity for claiming this during discussions where -nobody- agrees with you.

Even when we're discussing conspiracy theories, Strange, that doesn't float. Even conspiracies require -some- kind of workable standards of proof, or else we might as well all go whole-hog and subscribe to David Icke and his "Reptilian" nonsense. It's one thing to discuss secret societies and their impact on world affairs or the conduct of wealthy families: it's quite another to state that the members of those families are actually telepathic shape-shifting 7-foot lizards from another planet...and EVERYone knows it!

Strange Famous · 09-19-2010, 06:30 AM

If you believe that a lone gunman killed JFK thats a view you are entitled to, but not one the majority of people hold.

It is the same around AIDS theories. People do not know the truth, and the true spread of the disease spreading into humans is mysterious... but most people suspect and believe that the US govt and biological weapons testing was involved.

We know the US Intelligence forces were active in the area at this time. We know that both the US and USSR were involved in trying to develop biological weapons. We know that these kind of things have happened in the past (the US govt has admitted to delibaretely infecting and withholding treatment to black civilians with syphilis, something that was still going on in the 1970's)

So to summarise for you

We know that the spread of the disease into humans is NOT explained by any conventional scientific explanation

We know that the US govt has done things like this before

We know in that the US govt actively was researching biological warfare at ths time

We see the smoking gun, and the majority of people draw the most likely conclusion from the available facts. Perhaps you find it more comforting to hide from the truth when it is frightening or disturbing... this is your choice.

Baraka_Guru · 09-19-2010, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

So to summarise for you

We know that the spread of the disease into humans is NOT explained by any conventional scientific explanation

We know that the US govt has done things like this before

We know in that the US govt actively was researching biological warfare at ths time

We see the smoking gun, and the majority of people draw the most likely conclusion from the available facts.

Pearl Trade · 09-19-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

If you believe that a lone gunman killed JFK thats a view you are entitled to, but not one the majority of people hold.

I like to think I have a wide base of people I know well, and I've never heard any of them say JFK was capped by the government or more than one person. And that's coming from people who like him and people who dislike him.

For every piece of "evidence" you have, there's another piece of real evidence that proves otherwise.

I'd like to know where you get your information from, using words like "majority" and "most" can be backed up with a source of some sort. Maybe in your British circle of paranoid friends most of them believe in an AIDS conspiracy, but the outside world does not believe what you say.

Your wild assumptions are just not facts, Strange.

Strange Famous · 09-19-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

I like to think I have a wide base of people I know well, and I've never heard any of them say JFK was capped by the government or more than one person. And that's coming from people who like him and people who dislike him.

For every piece of "evidence" you have, there's another piece of real evidence that proves otherwise.

I'd like to know where you get your information from, using words like "majority" and "most" can be backed up with a source of some sort. Maybe in your British circle of paranoid friends most of them believe in an AIDS conspiracy, but the outside world does not believe what you say.

Your wild assumptions are just not facts, Strange.

right,and you regularly ask your mates for their views on who killed JFK do you?

Pearl Trade · 09-19-2010, 11:32 AM

I do not regularly ask them, no. But I do know their opinion about it, and it's not what you say it is.

I still want to know why you think these ideas are "widely held" and where you get your information from. It seems you're just making all of this up. No one is buying your bullshit claims.

Strange Famous · 09-19-2010, 01:13 PM

And I am sure the US state is very happy that some people are very happy to accept "two legs bad, four legs good" as their understanding of the world.

However, some people choose to question authority.

MSD · 09-19-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

So to summarise for you

We know that the spread of the disease into humans is NOT explained by any conventional scientific explanation

We know that the US govt has done things like this before

We know in that the US govt actively was researching biological warfare at ths time

We see the smoking gun, and the majority of people draw the most likely conclusion from the available facts. Perhaps you find it more comforting to hide from the truth when it is frightening or disturbing... this is your choice.

Allow me to summarize for you.

We know that you are outraged by the IRA

We know that you are not in favor of affording the same rights to those with unpopular opinions as to those whose opinions you find acceptable (according to quote in The_Dunedan's signature)

We know that several weeks before you were born, the European Court of Human Rights found the British government guilty of mistreating prisoners in Northern Ireland

We know that the day after you were born, a massive blizzard hit New England, dumping over 27 inches of snow on major cities, killing over 100 and causing $560M of damage ($1.7b adjusted for inflation in today's dollars.)

We know that Boston in particular has a disproportionately high number of people of Irish descent compared to the rest of the US.

We see the smoking gun, that your birth brought about the violent storm that avenged the mistreatment of their ...

Wait, no, this makes no sense, just like your bioweapon argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

right,and you regularly ask your mates for their views on who killed JFK do you?

I've discussed it several times with people over a few drinks. None of them accept the second gunman theory.

Walt · 09-27-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Lets talk about the facts.

Yes, lets talk about facts and not silly, uneducated speculation.

Correlation does not imply causation.
A fact is another way of saying demonstratable truth. That any percentage of a population believes in something does not automatically make that something true.
In the way you use the term, "common sense" is a fancy way for the uneducated or willfully ignorant to attempt to give their unfounded opinions weight via unanimous opinion. See #2.
That you cannot distinguish between the virus (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and the corresponding syndrome (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) certainly doesn't help your cause.
ALL biological weapons that I know of require an aerosol delivery system. HIV can only be transmitted via bodily fluids because it requires a very specific environment to avoid structural degradation - making it a poor candidate for weaponization.
There is no "debate" amongst the global scientific community regarding the origins of HIV. All empirical data indicates that present-day HIV was initially a zoonotic retrovirus that was transfered from one of the Ape species (most likely the Pan genus) to humans (it is suggested that this took place in/around Congo). Exactly how, when and where the virus mutated have yet to be determined. Anyone who tells you otherwise has both willfully ignored mountains of evidence AND cherry-picked data to support a pre-formed, prejudicial conclusion.
An op-ed written by a discredited dermatologist for the purposes of self-promoting his books DOES NOT constitute "debate".

Now it's your turn to supply facts.

ASU2003 · 09-27-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt

[*]There is no "debate" amongst the global scientific community regarding the origins of HIV. All empirical data indicates that present-day HIV was initially a zoonotic retrovirus that was transfered from one of the Ape species (most likely the Pan genus) to humans (it is suggested that this took place in/around Congo). Exactly how, when and where the virus mutated have yet to be determined. Anyone who tells you otherwise has both willfully ignored mountains of evidence AND cherry-picked data to support a pre-formed, prejudicial conclusion.
.

This might be a second topic, but would scientists ever admit to causing something that would harm the publics view of them?

Saying Nature caused it is an easy out. From them losing their jobs, lack of trust in vaccines/medical research, trails/lawsuits/lawyers, and scorn for years and years, admitting it was an accident would never fly. And neither would admitting a conspiracy targeting certain people (but I would only put that at a 4% chance).

So, what empirical data is there that proves that this would spread in the way it did in the first few years?

Walt · 09-29-2010, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

So, what empirical data is there that proves that this would spread in the way it did in the first few years?

By "spread", I assume you mean how did the virus "jump" from chimpanzees to humans? Once established, the human infection spread like wildfire due to many sociological factors.

HIV/AIDS Basics | Questions and Answers | CDC HIV/AIDS

Origin of HIV-1 in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes ... [Nature. 1999] - PubMed result

Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in... [Nature. 2008] - PubMed result

The origins of acquired immune deficiency syndrome... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2001] - PubMed result

The evolution of HIV-1 and the origin of AIDS. [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010] - PubMed result

http://www.aidsreviews.com/files/1999_1_4_238_249.pdf

Leto · 09-29-2010, 08:27 AM

There seems to be trend to blame some select group for an attempt of de-population at the root of, or to substantiate the conspiracy theory of the release of AIDS.

I have tried to pick it out of the links, but there seems to be an assumption that the motive is obvious. It isn't to me. Can anybody explain why such elaborate conspiracies would be hatched and controlled? What is the motive, and what is to be gained by the depopulation of Africa, or the decimation of (currently) gay men & women?

To me it violates the law of parsimony (Occam's Razor) and I cannot entertain it.

Stare At The Sun · 09-29-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

It is widely known that AIDS is man made, but I dont believe it was deliberately used to kill any social group or ethnic group... it was simply an agent of biological warfare that went horribly out of control.

Then why does it show up in blood from the 1930's?

It would be the worst biological agent in the history of man. it's not airborne, its frankly hard to contract HIV, and it requires bodily fluid exchange.

You sir, have no idea what you're talking about.

MSD · 09-29-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

This might be a second topic, but would scientists ever admit to causing something that would harm the publics view of them?

Science is not a secretive cabal of men in white labcoats and scientists are not a single-minded group of individuals with identical motivations, codes of ethics, and principles of action. Asking if scientists would ever do something is as invalid of a question as asking if blondes would ever do something or whether black people would do something. They are a cross-section of (well-educated) humans. They would act as you could expect anyone to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

There seems to be trend to blame some select group for an attempt of de-population at the root of, or to substantiate the conspiracy theory of the release of AIDS.

I have tried to pick it out of the links, but there seems to be an assumption that the motive is obvious. It isn't to me. Can anybody explain why such elaborate conspiracies would be hatched and controlled? What is the motive, and what is to be gained by the depopulation of Africa, or the decimation of (currently) gay men & women?

To me it violates the law of parsimony (Occam's Razor) and I cannot entertain it.

Racism and discrimination against "deviant" sexualities are powerful motivations.

Walt · 09-30-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

You would have seen HIV/AIDS for decades in order to get to the numbers in the 80s.

HIV-infected people were observed and documented in the 1950's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

That the doctors in the 70s knew the Hepatitis B vaccine would cause problems with the immune system.

Vaccines disrupt and suppress the immunodefense system. That is, by definition, how they work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Then there was a big campaign for gay men to get tested. The tests would give false positives for people who received the vaccine. Then they went on drugs that would kill off bone marrow and the immune system, which would cause AIDS.

I'm not sure if I'm following you. Chemotherapy disrupts the shit out of the immunodefense system. So do the anti-rejection drugs that accompany organ transplants and skin grafts. That is why people recovering from said treatment are at a very high risk of opportunistic pathogens. A weakened immunodefense system is not the same thing as AIDS.

Were your statement correct then people infected with HIV that did not recieve treatment would not develop AIDS. Conversely, people who had not been infected with HIV but had recieved chemotherapy would somehow "miraculously conceive" AIDS.

--------------------------------------------------

The author of your article makes reference to shadowy, secret government representatives, provides no verifiable evidence to support his claims and even goes so far as to state quite plainly that "there is no connection between HIV and AIDS."

MSD · 09-30-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt

Vaccines disrupt and suppress the immunodefense system. That is, by definition, how they work.

No, they do the opposite. They introduce a weakened or killed infectious agent that activates the immune system and causes it to produce antibodies specific to that agent.

Walt · 10-01-2010, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

No, they do the opposite. They introduce a weakened or killed infectious agent that activates the immune system and causes it to produce antibodies specific to that agent.

Yeah, dude. Which disrupts the immunodefense system and can cause both signs and symptoms of disease.

-----

Edit: Yeah, I see what I did there. You're right and I'm a dick.

ASU2003 · 10-01-2010, 04:22 AM

Timeline of early AIDS cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never knew about this Gaëtan Dugas slut. That is what I meant by spread rate. It went from one or two people here or there in the late 70s to 248 in a few years in the early 80s.

Then again, maybe he is a patsy...

I still have doubts about them actually finding HIV in the 50s. (And since this is paranoia, maybe 'they' infected people earlier than 1977 in order to test the virus.

)

I did come across that 1977 date yesterday when I went to donate blood. One of the questions was if I had sex with a man since 1977. I wasn't alive then, but I'm surprised they didn't care about 1976 or 1975. How would they know that there were no cases of HIV in the USA prior to 1977 (besides the fact that they would probably be dead)?

Pearl Trade · 10-01-2010, 01:01 PM

This report that just came out today ties into this thread nicely, I think. That said, I don't think this story helps someone like Strange Famous in their battle for exposing the truth, as this is not biological warfare, something Strange claims was the purpose for developing/spreading AIDS.

Quote:

The United States apologized Friday for a 1946-1948 research study in which people in Guatemala were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases.

The scientific investigation, called the U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of 1946-1948, aimed to gauge the effectiveness of penicillin to treat syphilis, gonorrhea and chancres. Penicillin was a relatively new drug at the time.

The tests were carried out on female commercial sex workers, prisoners in the national penitentiary, patients in the national mental hospital and soldiers. According to the study, more than 1,600 people were infected: 696 with syphilis, 772 with gonorrhea and 142 with chancres.

A similar study was conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, on nearly 400 poor African-American men with syphilis whose disease was allowed to progress without treatment. The subjects were not told they were ill with the disease.

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s - CNN.com

MSD · 10-01-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt

Yeah, dude. Which disrupts the immunodefense system and can cause both signs and symptoms of disease.

-----

Edit: Yeah, I see what I did there. You're right and I'm a dick.

I think what we're saying is a difference in semantics rather than opinion or understanding of facts. I think we're looking at the meaning of your use of "disrupts" differently but are clearly on the same side.

ASU2003 · 10-01-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

This report that just came out today ties into this thread nicely, I think. That said, I don't think this story helps someone like Strange Famous in their battle for exposing the truth, as this is not biological warfare, something Strange claims was the purpose for developing/spreading AIDS.

I saw this today as well. I'd bet that even if it was an accidental infection from the 1977 vaccine trials, that they would have had to come up with a good plan to cover it up. There would be too much fallout which I mentioned before (lawsuits, anti-vaccine public, scientists careers ruined...)

Plan9 · 10-01-2010, 09:49 PM

Threadjack:

Marlboro Reds were invented to kill heterosexual men.

MSD · 10-05-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

Threadjack:

Marlboro Reds were invented to kill heterosexual men.

And menthols are clearly targeting blacks for genocide.

09-17-2010, 05:18 PM	#41 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	The Origin of AIDS and HIV May Not Be What You Have Learned This website thinks it was caused by the Hepatitis B vaccine trials in the mid 70s. The vaccine was given to gay men in NYC/SanFran/LA and men in Africa. Those demographics were at risk for Hepatitis B, so it made sense to give them the vaccine. *Puts on conspiracy hat... I know that the government and drug company would not want to info to not be found out if it were true. Imagine the lawsuits, the lack of faith in vaccines, the knowledge that some company introduced a scary virus and put the public at risk) And I wouldn't be surprised with who was in the White House when AIDS was discovered* That sounds more credible than an ineffective bio-weapon or the rapid escalation in cases that wouldn't occur from a cut hunter or money-banging one-off transmission (You would have seen HIV/AIDS for decades in order to get to the numbers in the 80s). The military probably would have wanted to study air-borne viri with week long gestation, but communicative, periods and 100% mortality in a month. http://www.whale.to/b/rappoport.html If you read the bottom of the page from the last bolded title down, it goes into another conspiracy theory. That the doctors in the 70s knew the Hepatitis B vaccine would cause problems with the immune system. Then there was a big campaign for gay men to get tested. The tests would give false positives for people who received the vaccine. Then they went on drugs that would kill off bone marrow and the immune system, which would cause AIDS, and make lots of money for the drug companies and doctors... Interesting conspiracy theory for a Friday night. And exactly the type of real investigative reporting our media should be doing. I don't know what happened, but it proves you never know who to trust. Last edited by ASU2003; 09-17-2010 at 05:59 PM..

09-19-2010, 06:30 AM	#44 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	If you believe that a lone gunman killed JFK thats a view you are entitled to, but not one the majority of people hold. It is the same around AIDS theories. People do not know the truth, and the true spread of the disease spreading into humans is mysterious... but most people suspect and believe that the US govt and biological weapons testing was involved. We know the US Intelligence forces were active in the area at this time. We know that both the US and USSR were involved in trying to develop biological weapons. We know that these kind of things have happened in the past (the US govt has admitted to delibaretely infecting and withholding treatment to black civilians with syphilis, something that was still going on in the 1970's) So to summarise for you We know that the spread of the disease into humans is NOT explained by any conventional scientific explanation We know that the US govt has done things like this before We know in that the US govt actively was researching biological warfare at ths time We see the smoking gun, and the majority of people draw the most likely conclusion from the available facts. Perhaps you find it more comforting to hide from the truth when it is frightening or disturbing... this is your choice. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

09-19-2010, 11:32 AM	#48 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	I do not regularly ask them, no. But I do know their opinion about it, and it's not what you say it is. I still want to know why you think these ideas are "widely held" and where you get your information from. It seems you're just making all of this up. No one is buying your bullshit claims. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

09-19-2010, 01:13 PM	#49 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	And I am sure the US state is very happy that some people are very happy to accept "two legs bad, four legs good" as their understanding of the world. However, some people choose to question authority. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

09-29-2010, 08:27 AM	#54 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	There seems to be trend to blame some select group for an attempt of de-population at the root of, or to substantiate the conspiracy theory of the release of AIDS. I have tried to pick it out of the links, but there seems to be an assumption that the motive is obvious. It isn't to me. Can anybody explain why such elaborate conspiracies would be hatched and controlled? What is the motive, and what is to be gained by the depopulation of Africa, or the decimation of (currently) gay men & women? To me it violates the law of parsimony (Occam's Razor) and I cannot entertain it. __________________ You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey And I never saw someone say that before You held my hand and we walked home the long way You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

10-01-2010, 04:22 AM	#60 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Timeline of early AIDS cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I never knew about this Gaëtan Dugas slut. That is what I meant by spread rate. It went from one or two people here or there in the late 70s to 248 in a few years in the early 80s. Then again, maybe he is a patsy... I still have doubts about them actually finding HIV in the 50s. (And since this is paranoia, maybe 'they' infected people earlier than 1977 in order to test the virus. ) I did come across that 1977 date yesterday when I went to donate blood. One of the questions was if I had sex with a man since 1977. I wasn't alive then, but I'm surprised they didn't care about 1976 or 1975. How would they know that there were no cases of HIV in the USA prior to 1977 (besides the fact that they would probably be dead)?

10-01-2010, 09:49 PM	#64 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Threadjack: Marlboro Reds were invented to kill heterosexual men.