AIDS, Inc.

Kann

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Kann: here check this out, 10 minutes long only
snippets of "In Lies We Trust"

Ok, so I watched this. I'm not much more convinced. Especially since the narrator seems to mix up cancer and virus (lymphoma virus? Seriously?).
As for the part on world depopulation, if the government really created the hiv towards that goal, well they're even bigger loosers than you think : why create a virus which stays silent for 10 years if your plan is to create massive depopulation? This allows the virus to spread everywhere, and not only in 3rd world countries.
And, if I may, the fact that infection rates among black people in 3rd world countries are much higher than in europe is easily explainable through prevention : after the major outbreaks of aids in western countries our government put in place very efficient prevention policies. This was not the case in Africa, where they not only had little information on the virus but also had little access to stuff like clean needles, condoms etc. Before you know it the infection rate explodes (like it would have in Europe without these policies) .

the wolf wrote:

The U.S. govt. always has the ability to do things long b4 the public knows about it.

This argument is non refutable, kind of like if you took my first example and said : "Well jesus could have created a motorcycle, he made miracles before that". So I don't know what to say?

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I guess my questions is, if HIV\AIDS truly is an equal opportunity killer, and you are acknowledging that black Africans are in no discernably higher risk category for the disease than white Americans, WHY then is the prevelance of HIV in these poor countries HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of times greater than in America?

Should HIV not be spreading like wildfire through the developed world, just as it is through the poverty stricken regions of earth?

Does HIV just like to hang out with the poor?

Are you aware that rates of all diseases (STDs or HIV) are higher in poorer populations? It's not a matter of the virus 'discriminating by race,' it's that the poor are more likely not to receive as much education about STD prevention or have the means (sanitation issues, etc) to prevent diseases. You can find the latest AIDS stats here http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsrace, showing that about half the new infections in 2004 were in blacks, ~30% in whites, and ~20% in hispanics. If you scroll down further, you can also see the data that show it's increasing among heterosexual women, so the claim that the 'everyone is at risk' idea was just implemented as a scare and fund-raising tactic is silly.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Did you check out the little 10 minute clip?
Does it concern you that the guy who "discovered" HIV is the same guy who was working on a top secret government bio-weapons program with a stated aim of developing an infectious organism eerily similar to HIV?

Are you talking about Gallo? ha ha...........He's a jerk, but no, he doesn't concern me. Gallo discovered another retrovirus (the one responsible for Hepatitis.) His involvement in the HIV retrovirus is shady. Gallo was/is nothing more than a big egomaniac that was/is interested in nothing more than scientific prestige.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Also, regarding sexual transmission.
Are the people in these videos who quote studies showing that HIV requires an average sexual contact rate of about ONE THOUSAND CONTACTS TO CONTRACT flat out lying to you?

1000 to 1? Are you sure about that? I agree that HIV is not as virulent, as say Hepatitis C. But 1 in a 1000? I'd like the link to those scientific papers, I think. The central gist of AIDS denial is a fundamental misunderstanding of the germ theory of disease. Deniers will point out, for example, that immunodeficiency is possible without HIV, and use this as a 'blow' against the idea of HIV causation of the disease. This is, of course, patently ridiculous. Just because Streptococcus pneumoniae causes pneumonia, that doesn't rule out the fact that Staphylococcus can cause it too. This also explains why there are conditions such as so-called 'HIV-negative AIDS.' Immunosuppression in the absence of HIV could be due to a number of other things, including, potentially, other viruses. Conversely, the fact that not everyone who is HIV-positive develops AIDS is also to be expected. There are very few, if any, pathogens that cause disease in every single person who is infected. Every other disease has people who are infected, but healthy. We call this the 'carrier state.' There's no reason this couldn't happen with HIV as well. It's already been shown that people carrying a certain mutation appear to be resistant to AIDS. There are likely other factors that contribute to this as well. For instance, it's been suggested that other viruses may play a role in progression of AIDS, either speeding it up or slowing it down. Additionally, differences in viral strains may make some more virulent and the progress to AIDS quicker. There certainly can be other factors we just don't know about yet either. Disease is a complicated process.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Because if that is true, HIV is certainly NOT considered a sexualy transmitted disease.
It would be a considered a bloodborne pathogen that spreads by fluid exchange.

It is a blood borne pathogen AND it can be transmitted sexually.

Look, scientists do not suggest that we know everything about HIV. Indeed, as with every subject, there are gaps in our knowledge. In typical creationist fashion, though, deniers exploit these gaps in an attempt to discredit the entire HIV-AIDS connection, suggesting thousands of scientists, doctors, and public health officials are either mistaken, incompetent, or lying about HIV as the cause of AIDS and therefore, we should just throw our hands up in the air and discard the whole theory, rather than working to fill these gaps in with additional knowledge.

baraka

El_Kabong wrote:

do you know how closely cat AIDS or FIV is to ours? i know we can't spread it between cat to human or human to cat

I believe it is a different kind of virus.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_immunodeficiency_virus

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

Ok, so I watched this. I'm not much more convinced. Especially since the narrator seems to mix up cancer and virus (lymphoma virus? Seriously?).

Yes Kann, SERIOUSLY.

In case you didn't really get the message correctly,
the reference to LYMPHOMA VIRUS is directly off of a GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT.
Its called "SPECIAL VIRUS CANCER PROGRAM" and its real.
Even Dr. Gallo didn't deny THAT. :cool:

Its not conjecture on the part of Horowitz.

Look, i'm not a scientist, but after having watched several of these movies, and several of them several times, it seems to be the case that some of these "cancers" and HIV both share one common factor at least: REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE.

As far as i can tell that is a pretty major connection, and if it is on a government document that they were crossing these, i fully believe that the government was doing what it said it was doing.

Why do you shoot the messenger?
He showed you the proof.

?

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

Are you aware that rates of all diseases (STDs or HIV) are higher in poorer populations? It's not a matter of the virus 'discriminating by race,' it's that the poor are more likely not to receive as much education about STD prevention or have the means (sanitation issues, etc) to prevent diseases. You can find the latest AIDS stats here http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#aidsrace, showing that about half the new infections in 2004 were in blacks, ~30% in whites, and ~20% in hispanics. If you scroll down further, you can also see the data that show it's increasing among heterosexual women, so the claim that the 'everyone is at risk' idea was just implemented as a scare and fund-raising tactic is silly.

Okay for starters, the rest of your post is stuck on the "HIV doesn't exist" line of thought, which i'd like to drop completely for right now, and move to the postulate by Horowitz that i linked (check the OP now) ... i can try to explain how both of these run together (in fashion of sorts) later, but lets at least get a base line going.

As for the above quote, you've now mixed up the game (i'm not attacking you, i'm just trying to get you to see some things that you are actually stating, just still avoiding, seemingly) ...

so...
yes, i am aware that almost ALL diseases are higher in poor countries. However, MANY of those diseases ARE discriminatory against the poor in that they are diseases that spring from lack of sanitation. Others like malaria are due to regional conditions, and then finaly you have the STDs which you correctly describe as occuring more in poor areas due to lack of education.

However, HIV is affecting Africa at nearly EXPONENTIALY higher rates than it is America. North America continues to have less than 60,000 HIV cases per annum. Africa has several MILLION (5.4 million new AIDS cases in 1999) .... that is one MASSIVE MOTHERFUCKING DISCREPANCY.
Man, people in the US must use the shit out of some condoms. ???

How did a disease which (strange a bizzare and non sensical as it is) popped up in GAY white men in America and STRAIGHT black men in Africa at the exact same time -- and by the way, a disease which literature seems to show transmits MUCH more effectively via anal intercourse -- how did this disease skew so dramaticaly against Africa in just a few years???

Now.
This is all just questions and conjecture,
but the point is, Dr Gallo ... yes, Dr Gallo.
DID YOU WATCH THAT 10 MINUTE CLIP YET?

Do you not find it extremely suspect that he would DENY his involvement with SVCP, even though he was 1 of 3 directors, and then mysteriously 'discover' HIV some 15 years after this position was held? Keep in mind that Special Virus Cancer Program had as its mission the creation of a disease "descrptionaly and functionaly identical" to what we now call HIV.

???

Also, the bottom section of your above quote is now an admission that HIV IS IN FACT A DISRIMINATORY DISEASE THAT TARGETS BLACKS.

Are you agreeing with this thesis?

Please people,
(and this isn't you Baraka, you are VERY kind to oblidge here)

you don't have to believe "me", and you don't have to agree with every or any thing i say even,

but PLEASE don't just dismiss shit like this out of hand without first giving it some consideration.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WAS OVERSEEING A PROGRAM TO COMBINE CANCERS AND VIRUSES ON A SCALE UNIMAGINABLE.

Why is it so hard to think that, with a description of a disease IDENTICAL to HIV, that they may have in fact created HIV?

That doesn't seem to take much of a stretch, imho.

???

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

Ok, so I watched this. I'm not much more convinced. Especially since the narrator seems to mix up cancer and virus (lymphoma virus? Seriously?).

Also you are aware that things like Kaposi's Sarcoma (a cancer), according to MAINSTREAM literature, is CAUSE BY A VIRUS!

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma -- a CANCER -- is linked very closely with a VIRUS.

So CLEARLY there is a link between some cancers, and some viruses.

At what point that "link" blurs and the line between "causing" and "becoming" i have ZERO idea.

But i don't think either one of us has a complex and high level understanding of microbiology.

I'm sure Baraka could posit some ways that these two "different" life forms could come together.

Also, keep in mind, that one of the governments favorite tricks back in the 60s and 70s was to expose their experimental viruses or cancers to RADIATION.

You wanna talk about a quick way to mutate the shit out of something.

There you go.

baraka

Drifting, I'm not sure what position you are taking here. There are, indeed, several flavors of HIV deniers. From your list of questions, I assumed you were a full blown denier, asking questions about testing methodology and your questions about Africa. This what I said in one of my lengthy posts in your thread, 'Finally, on HIV denial more broadly, it's interesting to me, from what little I have read on the topic, but even among the deniers, they can't agree. Does HIV even exist? Some say absolutely, others say no way. Is AIDS then caused by drugs? Oxidation? Another virus? None of the above, all of the above? It's much like creationists arguing amongst themselves about the age of the earth and common descent. They can't agree on anything except that the scientists are wrong.' Tell me which flavor you are and we will take it from there. I have already provided much info about this topic in your thread.

Here is a great article written by an African physician about HIV in his country. Seeing how they are on the front lines here, it might answer some of your questions http://www.aegis.com/news/vv/2000/VV000701.html

Some highlights from the article:

"Let me take you back," says Sewankambo. In the beginning, the high proportion of Ugandans with HIV puzzled him. "My thinking was very much affected by the North: This is a gay disease. But if there wasn't that much homosexuality in our community, and we knew there wasn't any, really, then what was the mode of transmission? I was expecting mosquitoes."

The mosquito hypothesis was easy to test. Sewankambo and others examined households in which at least one person had AIDS, testing everyone, including children and grandparents. If AIDS was spread by mosquitoes, the virus should be present almost randomly, and certainly it should be in many children, who are the most susceptible to malaria.

Nothing of the sort was found. Of the sexual partners of the AIDS patients, a striking 71 percent were infected. Yet of the other people living in the household, with whom the patients were not having sex, only two out of 100 of were infected—a woman who was sexually active and her two-year-old son. "It did certainly suggest strongly that it was sexually transmitted," says Sewankambo.

Yet in their letter to Mbeki, Geshekter and Rasnick insisted that the sexual spread of HIV is "merely a very popular assumption," and pointed to a study conducted among couples in California showing that the odds of a man transmitting HIV to a woman during a single act of intercourse are slightly less than one in a thousand. From such first-world studies, they concluded that HIV is not frequently transmitted among heterosexuals anywhere.

"Outrageous," says the lead author of that study, Nancy Padian, who is also conducting research in Zimbabwe. "It's more likely that the epidemiology of a disease would differ in different locations than be the same—just look at cancer and heart disease."

As for African research, it leaves no doubt that HIV is spread heterosexually. The sex and age distribution of HIV on the continent mirror patterns seen with other STDs. Risk factors for having HIV include more sexual partners, being a prostitute, having had sex with a prostitute, and a history of STDs. In Uganda, two studies stand out. In one, wives were more than 100 times more likely to contract HIV if their husband had the virus than if he didn't. The other study, coauthored by Serwadda and Sewankambo, looked at couples in which one partner had HIV and the other didn't. What they found was shockingly simple: The higher the level of HIV in the infected partner, the greater the chance of transmitting it. This study suggests that if a vaccine could merely reduce the amount of HIV in the bodies of infected people, the epidemic could be curtailed. Clearly, this has tremendous implications for the whole world—and it came from research in Africa."

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Also, the bottom section of your above quote is now an admission that HIV IS IN FACT A DISRIMINATORY DISEASE THAT TARGETS BLACKS.

Are you agreeing with this thesis?

The above is an example of one NOT understanding or misrepresenting science and/ or infectious disease epidemiology.

And to be honest, I do not buy into the whole 'HIV was created and planted' theory, so other than thinking he is an asshole, I have no concerns about Gallo. This is what I believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
http://www.avert.org/aids-africa-questions-1.htm#q1

As far as why the incident of HIV is higher in Africa? From the link above: "No-one really knows the full answer to this question. However we do know there are many factors that influence the rate at which HIV is transmitted. Such factors include poverty; economic disparity; social instability; gender inequality; sexual violence; other sexually transmitted infections (which facilitate HIV transmission); lack of male circumcision; high mobility; rapid urbanisation and modernisation; and ineffective leadership during critical periods in the epidemic’s spread. Some scientists believe that differences between HIV subtypes also have an effect on transmission rates.4 5

People in sub-Saharan Africa don't have many more lifetime partners than people in other parts of the world. However, researchers have found that in some areas it is not uncommon for people to have two or more regular sex partners at the same time. Someone is most likely to transmit HIV during the period shortly after they are infected, when they have very high levels of virus in their body. Therefore someone who has two or more concurrent partners is more likely to transfer HIV between their partners than someone who has a series of monogamous relationships. This too may help to explain why HIV is more widespread in Africa."

There is a book called, 'HIV and AIDS in Africa: Beyond Epidemiology.' It is pretty good at describing the higher incident. From the book:"AIDS is devastating many areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Over 12 million people in the region have died of AIDS in the past decade. Over 22.5 million people in the region are infected with HIV, and of the 11 people who contract HIV each minute in the world, 10 live in sub-Saharan Africa. With no known cure and no vaccine yet available, an estimated 60% of Africans under the age of 18 today will be dead of AIDS before they are 45 years of age. Most prevention programs have failed, in part because the research behind them has focused primarily on "risk groups, " behavioral change models, and flawed understandings of cultural practices. HIV/AIDS in Africa is a collection that shifts the predominant understandings generated by biomedical and epidemiological research, recognizing that HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa is a complex and regionally specific phenomenon rooted in local economies, deepening poverty, migration, gender, war, global economies, and cultural politics. International contributors from across the social sciences further our understanding of AIDS by looking at the epidemic from angles previously not explored adequately. Ultimately, the underlying message of every contributor to this book is that AIDS will not diminish in Africa until social, gender, and economic inequities are addressed in meaningful ways."

I'm all about discussing and answering questions about testing methodology, infectious disease epidemiology, or other issues that allow diseases like HIV to thrive, but I can't entertain conspiracy theories that place superstition ahead of empirical evidence. But you know I like a good conspiracy, drifting, and you tell them better than anyone!

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

It's much like creationists arguing amongst themselves about the age of the earth and common descent. They can't agree on anything except that the scientists are wrong.' Tell me which flavor you are and we will take it from there. I have already provided much info about this topic in your thread.

Okay.
I have a lot of respect for you, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is your willigness to respond to this thread.

However i need to address the first portion of your response and i may get a bit aggrevated trying to do so; please bare with me.

I tried explaining earlier my opinion on the disparity of beliefs concerning HIV. As an open minded person, what is really frustrating to me is to see people insult those who have questions, simply because they don't have answers as well.

What i'm trying to say is best sumarized by taking another example, so look to JFK. This WAS a conspiracy. You may as well call anyone who believes Oswald was the LONE assassin a "JFK Denier" at this point. But 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago you mention ANY theory on how JFK was mudered by conspiracy and you were met with: "Oh yeah. So WHICH THEORY is it? Was it the CIA? Was it the Mob? Was it the russians? The Anti Castro Cubans? The Pro Castro Cubans? IT CANT BE ALL OF THEM. YOU CANT EVEN AGREE ON WHICH GROUP DID IT. YOU'RE SO STUPID!"

Well, what did the truth turn out to be?
The CIA hired the mob. Thats documented by the government in the Jewel Files. PROVEN. The CIA hired the mob, and the CIA was also entagled with a large group of ANTI-Castro cubans. Also proven at this point. Oswald was mixed up with ALL of these folks.

But then the government covered its tracks by sheep-dipping Oswald, sending him to Russia (DOCUMENTED! Declassified CIA documents prove he went to russia as CIA!) and also putting him in contact with PRO-Castro cubans.

The government then used Oswald's PRO-Castro and Russian connections to STOP open investigation in to the assassination by telling the Warren commssion that for "national security" we can't let the public know about the "russian conspiracy". But the truth was the opposite.

So what is my point here?

My point is you can NOT expect the inquisitive folks who EVENTUALY DISCOVER THE TRUTH to automaticaly know it from the word "jump". It has still only been 25 years or so, adn while a lot seems to be known, and a lot more seems to be in question, we aren't all the way there yet.

And unlike JFK, where much of the puzzle could be solved with any one with investigative sense and the ability to make contacts (uncover documents or witnesses), the AIDS\HIV "conspiracy" requires the skills of a MUCH more limited groups of individuals ... namely highly trained health care professionals.

Unfortunately, as AIDS, Inc shows many of these highly trained people (molecular biologists and retrovirologists, etc) are being BLACKLISTED and defunded and have their careers jeopardized for even daring to ask questions.

THAT KINDA MAKES IT HARD TO COME TO ANY CONSENSUS.

But, it is really disingenious to start making fun of people, just because they ask questions.

You get my flow?
Its offensive.
Its unfair.
And its counterproductive.

... next post for topical discussion

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

I'm all about discussing and answering questions about testing methodology, infectious disease epidemiology, or other issues that allow diseases like HIV to thrive, but I can't entertain conspiracy theories that place superstition ahead of empirical evidence. But you know I like a good conspiracy, drifting, and you tell them better than anyone!

Ahh. Jesus.
I don't even know where to start, girl.
I'm so riled up, and so much of what you quoted (i assume the bottom of that last post was quoted?) is disingenious information.

Instead of addressing this directly, i want to RE-DIRECT you BACK to the 10 minute video i posted, which i still don't think you've watched. If you had, i think you may have some questions yourself.

To add on top of that.
HERE IS A quote FROM DR. GALLO, HIMSELF:

from article, link below wrote:

On May 11, 1987, The London Times, one of the world’s most respected newspapers, published a front-page story entitled "Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus." The story suggests that African AIDS is a direct outgrowth of the WHO smallpox eradication program. The smallpox vaccine allegedly awakened a "dormant" AIDS virus infection in the black population. Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of HIV, was quoted as saying, "The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV (the AIDS virus)." The Times story is one of the most important stories ever printed on the AIDS epidemic; yet the story was killed and never appeared in any major U.S. newspaper or magazine.

-AIDS: A Doctor's Note on the Man Made Theory

So,
while Dr. Gallo emphaticaly denies ANY involvement with the possible creation of AIDS, he had NO problem passing the buck on to the World Health Organization, implying that the use of their smallpox vaccines may have somehow activated a "dormant" virus.

Hmm.

Look.

All i'm saying is we do NOT have all the facts.
Every response of yours has made that clearer and clearer.
For example:

You and quoting wrote:

As far as why the incident of HIV is higher in Africa? From the link above: "No-one really knows the full answer to this question. However we do know there are many factors that influence the rate at which HIV is transmitted.[...]"

and

You wrote:

People in sub-Saharan Africa don't have many more lifetime partners than people in other parts of the world.

Look, lets just cut down to it.
America: 40,000 infections in one year
Africa: 4,500,000 infections in one year.

That is 11,250% MORE infections in Africa than in America.
ELEVEN THOUSAND PERCENT.

You're admitting that Africans aren't necessarily any more or less sexualy promiscuous, and yet you some how want me to believe that a sexually transmitted disease ... not a disease with any relationship to sanitation, water supply, nutrition and which does not spread due to casual contact or through the air ...

a disease that travels from a penis to a hole or from a hole to a penis ...

the poor africans are ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE TIMES more likely to contract this?

And the scientific reason given is ???

you or article wrote:

HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa is a complex and regionally specific phenomenon rooted in local economies, deepening poverty, migration, gender, war, global economies, and cultural politics.

WTF?

WTF does that mean?
Seriously. Yeah its some words on paper but just THINK about it. Just THINK. A sexually transmitted disease, that is 112 times more prevalent on one continent than another ... and the attempted rationalization is that "local economies" have something to do with this ??? Poverty? MIGRATION ??? War ???? "global economies" WTF? Cultural politics !!??!?

A SEXUALLY transmitted disease, and the alleged reason that Africa has 11,250% more infections than America is?
They are poor, have more wars, and their economy ???

WHAT?

Call me ignorant,
but wtf?

To briefly explain "my" position,
i'm tempted to believe that the government was heavily involved in creating this virus, and i also think the test (Western Blot) is faulty, being used subjectively, and may be causing many false diagnosis in Africa and around the world. On top of that the drugs that have historicaly been given for HIV were and are highly toxic. Its not a stretch to think if you give a highly toxic drug to someone who is already seriously malnourished and ill that they might die, is it?

Now.
Please watch that 10 minute video, and acknowledge it.

I don't think you really know who Dr. Gallo is.
He was involved with some SERIOUSLY fucked up shit.

???

Thanks Baraka!

VictoryGin

baraka, you have the patience of a saint.

not sure that this will help, considering, but it's essential to point out that not all of africa is the same. it seems that's getting missed in certain posts. it is a very large continent with what, almost 1 billion people at this point? and baraka's posts mentioned sub-saharan africa (because they are the most affected region). and when you look at what baraka says about why the prevalence is greater in certain regions, it makes sense.

http://www.unaids.org/en/CountryResponses/Regions/SubSaharanAfrica.asp

also i feel the need to point out that just because something is sexually transmitted, it's not necessarily the only way it's transmitted. i believe that it was mentioned above that this is blood borne and sexually transmitted.

Kann

So CLEARLY there is a link between some cancers, and some viruses.

Absolutely, many documented examples.

At what point that "link" blurs and the line between "causing" and "becoming" i have ZERO idea.

A virus cannot become a cancer, only be (one of) the cause(s). If the government did actually work to create a virus causing lymphoma, it kind of failed

But i don't think either one of us has a complex and high level understanding of microbiology.

Well not a high, but high enough to know microbiology is for bacteria and molecular biology is for cancers and virus

I'm sure Baraka could posit some ways that these two "different" life forms could come together.

Technically neither are life forms, but the closest would be the virus. A cancer is just some of your cells going horribly bad. Many cases of virus causing cancers are documented (such as the link hpv - cervical cancer and the recent vaccine supposed to prevent infection and then the cancer).

Also, keep in mind, that one of the governments favorite tricks back in the 60s and 70s was to expose their experimental viruses or cancers to RADIATION.You wanna talk about a quick way to mutate the shit out of something.

Radiations are actually one of the available treatments for cancer
And radiation is a shitty way to mutate a virus since technically you can't control the way you'll mutate it. It's much easier to just create it from scratch. But that wasn't feasible in the 60-70's.

Do governments create biological weapons? yes
Do governments work on virus/bacteria and other infectious shit? yes
Does their findings help progress in medical techniques? yes
Does anyone have to gain anything by creating hiv? not really. unless you're really cynical and consider pharmaceutical companies create the diseases they treat.
Does anyone have to gain anything by raising the incidence of cancers in the general population? no, definitely not.

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

Does anyone have to gain anything by creating hiv? not really. unless you're really cynical and consider pharmaceutical companies create the diseases they treat.
Does anyone have to gain anything by raising the incidence of cancers in the general population? no, definitely not.

Policy makers concerned with overpopulation, or the political uprising of poverty stricken populations around the globe might "have something to gain".

I'm pretty sure they would much rather these people just dropped dead. Dropping dead, and requiring their governments to go heavily in to debt to purchase expensive treatments would be even better.

Call me cynical.

You said "virus causing cancer" and dismissed it,
but you just acknowledged there were "cancer causing viruses" ... why do you think Lymphoma Virus was supposed to be a cancer that caused a virus, and not the other way around?

And why do you not acknowledge that according to the DOD's own admission in a 1970 congressional budget record, that they were hoping to create a new disease that would significantly and permanently destroy the immune system of the infected individual?

That seems significant,
particularly in the context of the origin of HIV.

?

Kann

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Policy makers concerned with overpopulation, or the political uprising of poverty stricken populations around the globe might "have something to gain".
I'm pretty sure they would much rather these people just dropped dead. Dropping dead, and requiring their governments to go heavily in to debt to purchase expensive treatments would be even better.
Call me cynical.

That is cynical, and doesn't really make sense. If you see things that way what's to stop you from thinking every modern disease is an invention from "these people" designed to raise money and lower population density?

You said "virus causing cancer" and dismissed it,
but you just acknowledged there were "cancer causing viruses" ... why do you think Lymphoma Virus was supposed to be a cancer that caused a virus, and not the other way around?
And why do you not acknowledge that according to the DOD's own admission in a 1970 congressional budget record, that they were hoping to create a new disease that would significantly and permanently destroy the immune system of the infected individual?
That seems significant,
particularly in the context of the origin of HIV.

I don't think I acknowledged cancer causing viruses (if so, I'm sorry it's wrong), so no I think lymphoma virus is a virus specifically designed to cause lymphomas. And that stuff clearly failed since it comes far behind treatments, genetics and environment for causes.
I don't believe this hope to create a disease destroying the immune system: I fail to see the use of it. If you want to show me a "smoking gun" of government created diseases, show me the use of doing such diseases knowing :
1 - there are diseases far more deadly than aids (faster and more efficient)
2 - there are diseases costing much more than aids in treatments

DriftingByTheStorm

Kann wrote:

That is cynical, and doesn't really make sense.

Cynisism makes a LOT of sense when dealing with government,
but hey whatever man.

All i'm saying is this doesn't add up:

From Article wrote:

When Robert Gallo's blood test for HIV became available in the mid-1980s, the New York Blood Center's stored gay blood specimens were re-examined. Most astonishing is the fact that 20% of the gay men who volunteered for the hepatitis B experiment in Manhattan were discovered to be HIV-positive in 1980 (one year before the AIDS epidemic became "official" in 1981). This signifies that Manhattan gays in 1980 had the highest incidence of HIV anywhere in the world, including Africa, the supposed birthplace of HIV and AIDS. In addition, we now know that one out of five gay men (20%) tested positive for the new KS herpes-8 virus in 1982 when stored blood samples from an AIDS trial in New York City were re-examined by epidemiologists at the NCI in 1999.

-source

Do you not see a major problem with HIV allegedly coming from a monkey virus "jumping" species in Africa, but yet the initial population with the highest incidence of HIV was a gay community involved with a government vaccine study in America?

Further, the same percentage (20%) of these men come up positive for a new form of herpes (HHV-8 which causes "gay cancer". This virus was not official "discovered" for another 15 years.

WTF do you make of that?
Particularly considering the government had a stated (and HEAVILY FUNDED) mission to come up with a biological program that would create both a virus to permanently destroy the immune system, and then also to find a cancer that was transmissible via viral infection.

HIV with HHV-8 sure seems to fit that bill.
?

baraka

I forgot about this thread..........anyway

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Ahh. Jesus.
I don't even know where to start, girl.
I'm so riled up, and so much of what you quoted (i assume the bottom of that last post was quoted?) is disingenious information.

'disingenious information?' Are you talking about conspiracy sites opposed to peer reviewed papers, & articles & books written by an epidemiologist, a physician, or a public health professional, those on the front lines and in the field?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Instead of addressing this directly, i want to RE-DIRECT you BACK to the 10 minute video i posted, which i still don't think you've watched. If you had, i think you may have some questions yourself.

Ah, Dr Gallo again. I agree that his credibility is in serious doubt. But is the whole story really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo#HIV.2FAIDS_research_and_subsequent_controversy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

And the scientific reason given is ??? (snip)
WTF does that mean?
Seriously. Yeah its some words on paper but just THINK about it. Just THINK. A sexually transmitted disease, that is 112 times more prevalent on one continent than another ... and the attempted rationalization is that "local economies" have something to do with this ??? Poverty? MIGRATION ??? War ???? "global economies" WTF? Cultural politics !!??!?

A SEXUALLY transmitted disease, and the alleged reason that Africa has 11,250% more infections than America is?
They are poor, have more wars, and their economy ???

Drifting, I'm not sure how much more empirical evidence you need. I've provided answers to all these questions in my many lengthy posts in this thread.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

To briefly explain "my" position,
i'm tempted to believe that the government was heavily involved in creating this virus, and i also think the test (Western Blot) is faulty, being used subjectively, and may be causing many false diagnosis in Africa and around the world. On top of that the drugs that have historicaly been given for HIV were and are highly toxic. Its not a stretch to think if you give a highly toxic drug to someone who is already seriously malnourished and ill that they might die, is it?

Test methodology is my forte! I do it for a living. Now, I've already provided some information about testing eariler in this thread, but maybe I can be a little bit clearer this time without getting too boring.

First of all, out of the thousands of medical diagnostic tests out there to diagnose any medical problem, the Aids test ( Elisa followed by western blot which amplifies HIV DNA) is the most sensitive and specific test out there. Like I've said earlier, it's a damn good test, in fact, many other diagnostic tests out there don't come close to surpassing the AIDS test in its accuracy. The current tests that look for Lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or syphllis doesn't even come close to the accuracy of the AIDS test. Why no 'conspiracy' about rheumatoid arthritis or lupus or syphillis?

The rapid ELISA test has a sensitivity and specificity of over 99%. (The sensitivities and specificities close to 100% really make the test very reliable in the right clinical setting.) I don't know of any other medical diagnostic serum testing that is so sensitive or specific. And yes there are false positives and negatives. However, if you look at the fact that the most common malaria test has only a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 95 %, the malaria testing has a much higher rate of false positives! Is there also a conspiracy about the malaria epidemic?

So anyway, keeping it real, the ELISA detects antibodies to HIV +/- p24 Antigen (in the case of 4th generation assays). It is a highly sensitive and highly specific assay, but is capable of giving significant numbers of false positives in a low prevalence population (where the pre-test odds are low). This is a common pitfall, low prevalence compromises positive predictive value in any test with less than 100% specificity.

The Western Blot (or immunoblot) detects specific antibodies to weight sorted HIV-1 proteins belonging to the 3 classes (gag, pol, env). It is a less sensitive but more specific assay than the ELISA, and is often used for confirmation and disease follow-up. The Western Blot pattern can be positive, negative or indeterminate and there are different criteria for reading them (CDC/ASTPHLD, American Red Cross, CRSS etc.) The pattern can evolve with disease progression. HIV-2 specific WBs are available.

Nucleic acid tests are the most sensitive, most specific and most expensive. They are difficult to perform with expertise (if done improperly, false negatives due to sample matrix inhibition and false positives due to sample-sample carryover contamination abound). They are uncommonly used in routine clinical diagnosis and are generally reserved for screening blood products prior to human transfusion. They are also sometimes useful in testing neonates with vertically acquired maternal antibodies to HIV. You can test for viral RNA or proviral DNA (which is the form that integrates into human cells). And you can use different assay methodologies (PCR for DNA, RT-PCR for RNA and bDNA (branched chain DNA assay).


There is no doubt under the right circumstance a test can produce false positives and negatives but there is no other medical diagnostic test that I can think of offhand that has such a good specificity and sensitivity (thus the potential to diagnose a blood clot in the lungs is fraught with much more false negatives and positives). That's why bringing up the rate of false positives and false negatives as the main thrust of the argument is way off base. Most folks have no idea that almost all other medical diagnostic testing are far less sensitive and specific.

Ah, you had to get me going on methodology!!!

baraka

Also, as far as Africa (and I mentioned this earlier in the thread), the diagnosis of AIDS, especially in very impoverished areas, is often on symptoms rather than a molecular test. I said this earlier, but doctors get pretty damn good at diagnosis based on symptoms alone. Like I said, a single bout of malaria or diarrhea won't cause a physician to suspect AIDS, even in Africa. It's when those are frequent, and accompanied by other signs (such as severe weight loss, etc.) that the physician begins to suspect AIDS.

As far as the toxicity of the medicines or treatments.............well, again, like my argument concerning testing, this is a fact of medicine in general for many things. Some treatments cause other conditions. A lot of treatments, such as chemo & radiation are quite dangerous actually.

Also, I'm actually still unclear of your position. Do you believe HIV cause AIDS? Or do you just believe HIV is a man made virus? Some of your arguments leads me to believe you don't actually believe HIV causes AIDS.

And if you don't believe the Africans are dying from AIDS or that the tests are faulty giving false positives, then what do you think is happening to these folk's immune systems that is making them die from things that just don't kill people with normal immunities, even under the most distressing physical conditions ( ie: starvation?) I'm talking about cryptococcal meningitis, toxoplasmosis, PCP pneumonia, etc, infections that were almost non existent until the AIDS epidemic. I suppose you could argue about how these folks died from 'normal infections' like cholera, streptococcal pneumonia, malaria, etc which also kill non HIV infected folks, but how do you explain these opportunistic infections? MAC colitis ( Mycobacterium avium complex) diarrhea is almost unheard of in those with normal immune systems. Ok, maybe you can argue about chemotherapy induced immune dysfunction (which predisposes these patients to some similar opportunistic infections found only in HIV), but I doubt that that many Africans are getting chemotherapy.

Kann

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Cynisism makes a LOT of sense when dealing with government,
but hey whatever man.

Well then answer this : "If you see things that way what's to stop you from thinking every modern disease is an invention from "these people" designed to raise money and lower population density?".
You have doubts on HIV because of documents, but what's to stop you from falling in the all paranoid delirium that we don't know shit and every single disease in a human invention?

DriftingByTheStorm

Baraka: I don't really need to quote anything, but i read everything you typed, and i really appreciate your responses.

So heres the deal.
I posted this thread immediately after watching AIDS, Inc so my head was filled with mixed thoughts.

But i've come across some new information that has solidified my opinion.

Check this out:

You want to know what my position is?
I'm sticking with Dr. Leonard Horowitz and PhD Boyd Graves on this issue -- the government made HIV.

Earlier i said that it was possible some of this "HIV doesn't exist" line of thinking could simply be explained as Counter Intelligence -- false opposition -- psychological operations. That assertion apparently IS correct!
Here is what made the lightbulb go off if you will:

The preeminent "AIDS denialist", the one that apparently started it all and continues to lead the "denialist" charge is none other than Doctor Peter Duesberg.

Want to take a guess what Dr. Duesberg did before denying HIV as a cause of "AIDS"?

I mean, besides being a preeminent researcher of retrovirology, and a professor of molecular and cell biology at UCLA Berkley.

I'll give you one guess.

Give up?
Through the 1970's he worked under the same Litton Bionetics contract for the Department of Defense, as a collegue and co-research associate of Dr. Robert Gallo ... FOR? ... huh ? ... The US Special Virus Cancer Program.

Get it?

Spell it out for you?
Gallo and Deusberg were BOTH part of the SVCP and are probably co-conspirators to the research on and eventual creation of the "special virus", which in all actuality is HIV.

So the masks these gentleman wore to disguise their association with the creation of HIV?

One becomes the Dr. who DISCOVERS the virus.

And the other one discredits himself and smokescreens the whole things by becoming the DENIER of the virus.

Again,
SERIOUSLY.

Anyone who questions this as idiotic conspiracy REALLY needs to check in to just what the fuck the Special Virus Cancer Program was.

Did you see the quote that appears halfway through that 10 minute clip?

IT DESCRIBES HIV\AIDS, TO THE T-CELL.
Is it not just a LITTLE bit curious that a program that ran 15 years prior to the initial outbreak of HIV had the stated intention of creating a virus EXACTLY like HIV ... and they said in 1970 it could be ready in ten years? 1980, again to the T-Cell.

???
Brains people.
Use them.