AIDS- 25 years later

[Buddy]

DDD

I know what you said I was going off the last part about the church and saying only that that part could be very try and going off how they would rationalize the fact that it would kill outside thier methods. Since my post agreed with evidence that you stated before as well as elaborated on an idea you brought up I would assume its a safe bet that I read your post. Did you read mine how I agreed with what you said about it being man made and the chuch possibly having a hand in it?

 

[Black Widow]

I, for one, am not above entertaining the idea that the CHURCH or the GOVERNMENT might have had something to do with HIV.

I heard a statement recently that I agree with.... "As long as there is 'one true God' There will be killing in His name."

JUST LOOK at the wars that have been started in God's name. The CRUSADES, anyone? Even recently... BUSH practically subliminally suggests that God would sanction the war on terror...

AIDS as 'god's punishment' and the 'gay man's disease' absolutely REEKS of my aforementioned sentiment. IF the govenrment WERE behind this, I would not be surprised.

However.... that the government would create a contagious virus of such deadly nature and NOT create an antivirus sounds too irresponsible, even for our corrupt government.

And if they wanted to eradicate the blacks or the gays, they did a really half-ass job with it.

I can't pretend to know enough about this topic to aggresively argue one side or the other, BUT... I would be very interested in SEEING some of these government released 'progress reports' and actual documentation of the 'special virus' program.

And I WILL say this:

ZORCROW.... do you EVER use your BRAIN as you are typing up some of the complete HORSESHIT you post?

150-300 partners on AVERAGE for a gay man?? Not only is that PREPOSTEROUS... but there's no WAY that could be accurate. There's no WAY anyone could make an estimate like that unless they were either constantly surveilling EVERY homosexual or POLLING gay men themselves... the former is IMPOSSIBLE, and the latter is ridiculous because NO person on EARTH would be crazy enough to cop to having sex with THAT many people.

I swear you drive me away from so many discussions. AND WHAT THE FUCK? HOW can you bring the 'men are stronger than women' discussion into THIS THREAD TOO??!! Why dont you just PUT IT in your signature?? YES, men, on average, are stronger than women. EVEN IN THE FEMINISM THREAD, that's so fucking tangent! It's like saying men are bigger than women. SO FUCKING WHAT?! That's got NOTHING to do with the feminism discussion [about the GOALS of feminism] and that's certainly got NOTHING to do with HIV/AIDS! LET IT GO! LET. IT. GO. :lec:

 

[ZorCrow]

Titania,

I do use my brain, that's why I don't follow some of the narrowminded thinking that are displayed in debates on serious topics on this website.

I used something called facts, statistics and resouces and also something that some folks have a hard problem with called harsh reality. AIDS is a bad disease, a bad problem it has affected the rich and the poor, the needy and the greedy, the innocent and the wanton.
However, can not ignore the reality of AIDS and why and how it is commonly sread.

 

[Black Widow]

YOU don't follow narrowminded thinking? YOU?

Excuse me.... I think I have to go laugh til I cry now.

Forgive me, everyone else, for my borderline SPAM post. I couldn't resist.

 

[Karma]

think nothing of it. because clearly no thought went into the post ABOVE yours either

 

[Jackpot]

I think I am on the same page as DDD here and also Titania at least now, that the current HIV/AIDs more than likely started from a pre-existing virus, as to my knowledge, NO virus has been spontaneously created by mankind. But it is not entirely impossible or unlikely that HIV/AIDs currently has been enhanced, and cultivated by humans, from what would otherwise would be a limitedly threatening illness (as DDD explained in his comparison with animal viruses). The virus more than likely has deep routes in the history of man, and has affected for much time and caused immune system weakening much more limitedly than it currently does. And since similar viruses, naturally occurring, are found in wildlife, it is more than likely the ORIGINAL form of the ailment was also natural. The symptoms have recurred throughout time and have been recorded and are most likely the result of a predecessor to HIV/AIDs.

Again, it is very unlikely the disease was generated to destroy gays or blacks in America, it is the worst idea for population control ever. If the government, church, or whoever was to do such a thing, they would not use AIDs as it is equally affective on ALL people. And collateral damage is not the case here, the disease if let run rampant could very well eradicate all of mankind; and already it affects SO many people, plenty of whom are not black or gay. And like Titania said, it would be irresponsible for someone to release such a disease and not provide an antivirus. Also, as I said before, there are better choices to employ against both blacks AND homosexuals. Sickle cell anemia is devastating to people of African descent (and other Mediterranean peoples as it is a common evolutionary trait in areas where malaria is common) and could be employed in the same manner but also be more controlled. Open and promiscuous homosexuals were already being ravaged by an explosion of STDs in the same time period, which is the reason Manhattan homosexuals needed a Hepatitis vaccination in the first place. And it would save lots of money to simply prevent the dispensing of such vaccinations or otherwise managing them than to create an entirely new virus. And though I personally do not know, I would think that there are (and know there are at least a few) other diseases that are more selective in their devastation.

And finally, I just don’t have much faith in the Graves AIDs timeline as I stated a few times already. There are some serious problems with several items on that timeline, Graves could have entirely self-beneficial reasoning for such accusations, and I personally have not seen the documents referenced so cannot take their citing as fact, or even agree that such documents exist. Nonetheless, nothing is impossible.

 

[Malice]

just keep in mind that Titania ALSO said she wasnt ABOVE the idea of the government or church being behind something like this...and that it WOULDNT SURPRISE HER. Unlikely? perhaps....IMPOSSIBLE? only if you're one of those truly naive people who believe the government ONLY acts out of "the best interest of its people".

at this point, honestly i'm done with it. if people want to believe that AIDS was just some naturally occurring thing , fine.

im sorry i started this thread now as i look back on some of the comments but at least it was a good idea at the time i created it.

 

[DonDaddyD]

I think I am on the same page as DDD here and also Titania at least now, that the current HIV/AIDs more than likely started from a pre-existing virus, as to my knowledge, NO virus has been spontaneously created by mankind. But it is not entirely impossible or unlikely that HIV/AIDs currently has been enhanced, and cultivated by humans, from what would otherwise would be a limitedly threatening illness (as DDD explained in his comparison with animal viruses). The virus more than likely has deep routes in the history of man, and has affected for much time and caused immune system weakening much more limitedly than it currently does. And since similar viruses, naturally occurring, are found in wildlife, it is more than likely the ORIGINAL form of the ailment was also natural. The symptoms have recurred throughout time and have been recorded and are most likely the result of a predecessor to HIV/AIDs.

You've cleverly twisted what I've said to support your argument.

I never said or gave mention that HIV had an original human form.

Given the evidence it is possible that HIV had no original-less-threatening Human form. From its first reported case (1930's) and the first reported case of the second varient (1959) the human immune system has always reacted in a way that would suggest that the virus DID NOT evolve naturally with the host. If it did evolve with us naturally their would be a larger degree of immunity as is the case with other species.

There has never been reference to the virus in 'original' human form. Other than the HIV that there is now.

HIV-1 came from SIVcpz (HIV in Chimpanzee's).
HIV-2 came from a different type of monkey.

The virus wasn't natural to Mankind. The fact that the second varient of the SAME virus didn't evolve from the first in a 20yr period is not a conicidence.

I'm saying that it WAS manufactured. They took a SIV and modified it into HIV. For reason's we can only speculate.

IF there was a varient we were highly immune to and that was the virus they manipulated on until it is what it is today, they would have or would be closer to a cure. That completely disproves your previous claim that they aren't holding back on a cure.

Again, it is very unlikely the disease was generated to destroy gays or blacks in America, it is the worst idea for population control ever.

How do you explain two varients of the virus emmerging in a 20yr gap and with the latter virus being contained entirely within West Africa.

The World wasn't as aware of the dangers of STI's back then, the fact that almost no case of HIV-2 has ever been recorded outside of West Africa is telling indeed. Moreover HIV-2 by design is more controlled than HIV-1 (which plagues the World), there is no given reason as why the Virus mutated this way.

If the government, church, or whoever was to do such a thing, they would not use AIDs as it is equally affective on ALL people. And collateral damage is not the case here, the disease if let run rampant could very well eradicate all of mankind; and already it affects SO many people, plenty of whom are not black or gay.

Look I know I said that it isn't the best way to kill Gay people in the western World because one could turn out to be bisexual and then everyone is fucked.

But it isn't helpful to be so closeminded and dismiss everything except for the notion that the Government will always do the best for its people.

The reason that it affects so many now, was because the scientific communities around the World were at the time unwilling to accept scientific evidence that AID's was not just a specific Gay virus. Had they not been closeminded they would have acted sooner to protect everyone. Instead they taught the public at large that only Gay's could contract GRIDS (as it was known then). This increased everyones exposure to the virus and it is now the pandemic that it is. Its the Govenrments (many governments across the World) fault.

I'm not saying that it was purposely intended to kill Gay people but at a time the World thought it (the virus) was. So I am at least open too the possibility that it was intentionally made for that reason and when they (those in charge) realised that it could spread into hetrosexual people they changed direction claiming ignorance.

As for my theory for the Church being behind it. Both Islamic followers and Christian followers could be behind it. AIDS affects EVERYONE, it is passed through drug abuse a religous no, its passed through promiscuous sex also a religious no. Some religous country or religous fanatical scientist could have made ('God's virus') so that all those that do not adhere to the doctrines could run the risk at becoming infeted. If anything the Church has no bias accept to those that do not follow its laws.

- I'm not saying it is the case but its a theory nonetheless.

I do however believe that the different pandemic of HIV in West Africa was man made.

Also, as I said before, there are better choices to employ against both blacks AND homosexuals. Sickle cell anemia is devastating to people of African descent (and other Mediterranean peoples as it is a common evolutionary trait in areas where malaria is common) and could be employed in the same manner but also be more controlled.

You need to stop quoting this form of anemia. It cannot be passed on with ease like Aids. It may be a blood disease but if I have unprotected sex with someone with Sickle Cell I'm not going to catch it nor is it a certainty that my child is going to be born with it.

It isn't as dangerous or as damaging as Aids and doesn't nearly kill as swiftly.

Sickle Cell would need to be unchecked and take centuries before it actually started diminishing the population to a substantial degree. AIDs on the other hand could potentially wipe out a population inside 2 generations (great Grandfather to great great Grandchild).

 

[Osiris]

Im not sure what I can add that hasnt been said, but I think its a crying shame that in this country we care more about "celebrities" and gay marriage then we do about issues such as HIV/AIDS, homelessness, healthcare, etc.

It just seems that I get more and more bitter with each passing day living in a world like this.

 

[Jackpot]

Sorry DDD, I didn't mean to lump you in with all I had as an opinion, mostly that the virus began as some form of naturally occurring thing and may have been altered but likely not created from scratch, that although there may have been motives, it is unlikely the virus was created to kill such a selective group since it was known to be applicable to all people's at its origination (by the medical community moreso than the public).

I still personally think that HIV/AIDs has some viral root in mankind. As I said, for centuries symptoms of an unidentified illness that reduced the immune system has occurred and somewhat commonly. It was more than likely undiscovered due to less than great medical knowledge, especially on a microscopic level. Furthermore, the viruses roots in its animal companions are questioned, including by Graves' timeline and many of those whom support the idea that the govt. created the virus. And the fact that it quickly evolves is a weak arguement that the virus cannot be natural, lots of things are unique in nature, and lots of those phenomenon are due to unique and selective mutation and/or evolution. Mankind would not be any more or less immune to a swiftly changing virus than if if were manmade. Furthermore, AIDs (which often is not the technical cause of death, but instead leaves the body to deteriate from other viruses, diseases, infections, etc.), causes immune system deficiency (based on science it is often the healthy whom evolve immunity), the virus is world consuming meaning it is difficult for one group of people to naturally develop any level of immunity, again it rapidly can change, and also the people who suffer the virus often die early, and I don't believe, especially now, that great a deal of people with AIDs have children, especially those who don't also die early. Evolution takes time, reproduction, health, etc. You may be right that it would be more likely that a cure would be more likely found, but at the same time the virus was only identified in recent history, and naturally occuring diseases can be plenty evolving and hard to cure as well (cancer? and plenty more...), so it may hinder my arguement, but by no means does it completely disprove it.

As for HIV-2 as you noted. I have serious doubts that the virus was released in Western Africa as a form of eradication. Western Africa and its inhabitants are not a target, to my knowledge I do not believe they were ever noted for immoral behavior such as promiscuity or drug use. That situation is not prticularly relevent to the HIV/AIDs epidemic that affects the globe.

I am not being closeminded at all, I am saying what I think, and I am not saying I am definitely right, I do not have the documentation, nor the scientific knowledge to be so decisive. I am not saying the govt. My very few posts maybe, I was too quick to be against the notion, but now, reading through the info provided, I still don't believe a certain social body created the virus, and more importantly target it on blacks or gays. But I am not in any way saying the govt. handled it well, it HAS been dealt with extremely poorly, but not with intention to eradicate IMO. And yes, AIDs was directly and significantly detrimental to the gay community, but the culture of the times made helping what appeared to be a homosexual disease, or at least one that was dominantly in that community, was a touchy and difficult subject to even bring before a legislature.

As for anemia, on further review you are generally right. AIDs is more readily and commonly transmitted and poses a greater threat. But though I do not know for sure, I still believe that their are diseases that more directly attack people of African descent, mostly through non-exposure.

 

[DonDaddyD]

I still personally think that HIV/AIDs has some viral root in mankind. As I said, for centuries symptoms of an unidentified illness that reduced the immune system has occurred and somewhat commonly. It was more than likely undiscovered due to less than great medical knowledge, especially on a microscopic level. Furthermore, the viruses roots in its animal companions are questioned, including by Graves' timeline and many of those whom support the idea that the govt. created the virus. And the fact that it quickly evolves is a weak arguement that the virus cannot be natural, lots of things are unique in nature, and lots of those phenomenon are due to unique and selective mutation and/or evolution.

You are denying ONE simple fact.

It has been Scientifically confirmed that:

HIV-1 came from SIV found in Chimpanzees and mutated as a process of zoonosis.

HIV-2 came from SIV found in an unrelated monkey.

There has to my knowledge never been a World wide scientifically recognised link between HIV and a previous human originated virus.

As I said if HIV was naturally occuring or evolved with a human host naturally we would have a larger degree of immunity as seen with other species who also carry a varient of the virus that works in the same way. Moreover the way our immune systems react too HIV it has also been scientifically proven that our bodily reaction is more akin if not IDENTICAL to NON-NATURAL HOSTS, a reaction also displayed in various examples of the animal kingdom.

I have provided detailed text book recognised explinations of the root of the virus. All your doing now is arguing because you refuse to be wrong.

The fact that it quickly evolves is not a weak argument when you know that virus's that do evolve quickly (i.e. jump from one species to another) tend to have a large degree of human exposure in order to do so. HIV's jump from SIV was less than natural.

Mankind would not be any more or less immune to a swiftly changing virus than if if were manmade. Furthermore, AIDs (which often is not the technical cause of death, but instead leaves the body to deteriate from other viruses, diseases, infections, etc.), causes immune system deficiency (based on science it is often the healthy whom evolve immunity), the virus is world consuming meaning it is difficult for one group of people to naturally develop any level of immunity, again it rapidly can change, and also the people who suffer the virus often die early,.

Acquired Immunodeficency Syndrome comes about because the non natural host body's immune system attacks the HIV virus. Through attacking it destroyes Tcells that decreases the immune system and then leads to AIDS. (that is an extremley brief description it does more than that). Basically the harder your immune system is works the weaker it becomes because HIV destroy's the Cells cruicial to the normal function of the Immune System. In actual fact the drugs they supply too my knowledge do not attack the virus it stops the immune system from attacking the virus.

In natural host body the immune system does not attack the HIV virus thereby not depleting itself. It is possible for a Natural host body to carry the immunodeficency virus and live its natural life span and never advance into AIDS. This is because host and virus evolved naturally over time (note I haven't put a time frame on this).

Because our bodies attack the virus as though it was foriegn too our bodies it suggest (and has been scientifically confirmed) that HIV was never natural to the Humanity.

and I don't believe, especially now, that great a deal of people with AIDs have children, especially those who don't also die early. Evolution takes time, reproduction, health, etc
How can you say people with the virus don't have babies when the virus is increasing and in countries where testing isn't free or compulsoary there are those who don't even know they have it.

That is a terrible naive thing to say.

The number of people infected with HIV is increasing, in countries where testing isn't compulsory or free people walk around not knowing they are infected. The number of children born with HIV in West Africa is increasing.

You may be right that it would be more likely that a cure would be more likely found, but at the same time the virus was only identified in recent history, and naturally occuring diseases can be plenty evolving and hard to cure as well (cancer? and plenty more...), so it may hinder my arguement, but by no means does it completely disprove it.

Like Sickle Cell you cannot use Cancer as an example it works differently. The fact that we all have cancerous cells and that we are not all dying from it shows that our bodies must have evolved alongside the illness, developing some form of natural resistance. It did not just occur like Aids did it was a process. That alone completely disproves your arguiment.

As for HIV-2 as you noted. I have serious doubts that the virus was released in Western Africa as a form of eradication. Western Africa and its inhabitants are not a target, to my knowledge I do not believe they were ever noted for immoral behavior such as promiscuity or drug use. That situation is not prticularly relevent to the HIV/AIDs epidemic that affects the globe.

Can you explain why it is only found in part of one continent around the World. Whereas HIV is generally considered a global pandemic?

As for anemia, on further review you are generally right. AIDs is more readily and commonly transmitted and poses a greater threat. But though I do not know for sure, I still believe that their are diseases that more directly attack people of African descent, mostly through non-exposure.

I'm completely right.:raspberry . Outside of biological Warfare name me one disease that could kill off a race in two - three generations? AND can do it as covertly as HIV especially when the carrier or the infected do not know that they have it.

HIV is a perfect weapon to kill off the poor, who cannot afford physical contraception to protect themselves.

 

[Karma]

the time it was released in West Africa coincides with the time the Manhattan event occurred. statistics also show that AFRICA has the MOST casualties from AIDS GLOBALLY and that over 100 million people in africa ALONE could be dead from AIDS in the next 25 years.

 

[Jackpot]

Oh my, with more research on my behalf, you are again correct DDD. I guess HIV/AIDs does not originate in humans and is in fact rooted in monkeys, some of the sources I read prior had misinformed me saying that the data was unproven, and I also read that the methods used in testing was flawed but that was an isolated event. But I still believe, although not HIV/AIDs, what very well may have been the human equivalent of some Immunodeficiency Virus has existed, but maybe mankind has out evolved it, because similar symptoms being unexplained have occurred many times in history. But again, not HIV/AIDs as I now understand it.

But cancer was a valid argument. There are plenty of humanly harmful diseases that do not have cures yet, and they have been known around as long as AIDs at least...various leukemia, Alzheimer’s, asthma, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, lymphoma, more rare diseases, and a good deal of mental diseases. Yet we have coexisted with these, but people die from them all the time in large numbers. People can survive these in rare cases, but rare people with HIV/AIDs can survive too, or at least live longer, for example your Magic Johnson, not to mention the disease has only known to be existed (and only possibly if created) during the 20th century and now.

For why it is in a selected area. Well, alongside the info on its origin in monkeys, i found the more common explanation of the origin of AIDs which occurred IN west Africa when a doctor was testing a polio vaccine that used simian tissue (containing SIV) and so it spread. HIV-2 was contained because it is a separate virus as explained, and the people with it have clearly not spread it out to the world and it is not unlikely that the poor western Africans who cannot even afford the occasional condom remain in their homelands for the entirety of their undeservedly reduced lives. The times of the West Africa and Manhattan incidents do not coincide; the West African incident occurred as late as the late 50s, the Manhattan occurrence was late 70s/early 80s. And even if you think they are still related, it at least eliminates the religious idea (besides a religious individual) as it was not any religious body that was distributing the test Hepatitis vaccine.

And maybe you are right, HIV is an affective biological weapon, but the fact remains that it is very unselective. Those not able to acquire contraception are not poor, they are impoverished. And that does not single out gays or blacks either. And again, the virus can easily move from said peoples to anyone else through simple indiscretion and whomever would release it would know this. I still think it has too much destructive and unselective potential to spread that it is rather unlikely someone(s) would use it as an eradication device.

 

[DonDaddyD]

Oh my, with more research on my behalf, you are again correct DDD. I guess HIV/AIDs does not originate in humans and is in fact rooted in monkeys, some of the sources I read prior had misinformed me saying that the data was unproven, and I also read that the methods used in testing was flawed but that was an isolated event. But I still believe, although not HIV/AIDs, what very well may have been the human equivalent of some Immunodeficiency Virus has existed, but maybe mankind has out evolved it, because similar symptoms being unexplained have occurred many times in history. But again, not HIV/AIDs as I now understand it.

It is interesting that you still think that there may have been some human version of an Immunodeficiency Virus. Any reason for that assumption? Also if there was wouldn't we be more immune to HIV given that the majority of Immunodefieciecy Virus's all attack in the same way? Part of the reason why they are grouped.

But cancer was a valid argument. There are plenty of humanly harmful diseases that do not have cures yet, and they have been known around as long as AIDs at least...various leukemia, Alzheimer’s, asthma, cystic fibrosis, emphysema, lymphoma, more rare diseases, and a good deal of mental diseases.

Your missing the point and your not looking at your arguments expansively. When the body has a foreign object within it (transplant virus etc) the immune system will attack it because it is not natural too the body, much like HIV. There are diseases natrual to our systems that until they become threatening our immune systems will leave alone.

In Cancer's case it is only until the cancerous cells become malignate does the body actually do something. As I said before we all have and carry cancerous cells. That alone proves that we evolved with it. To some degree we have a natural immunity to it or our bodies would eat us up from the inside. HIV isn't the same thing it is a foriegn to the body.

Yet we have coexisted with these, but people die from them all the time in large numbers. People can survive these in rare cases, but rare people with HIV/AIDs can survive too, or at least live longer, for example your Magic Johnson, not to mention the disease has only known to be existed (and only possibly if created) during the 20th century and now.

Again read into my post before trying to disprove me I'm getting tired of saying things over and over again.

The body reacts in one way to HIV it attacks it. When it attacks it the virus destory's Tcells which inturn weakens the immune system - its a catch 22 scenario. That leads to AIDS. It is not natural to the human body. The one RARE case Magic Johnson wouldn't have survived for as long as he has without the millions of dollars he is able to pour into treatment to keep him alive.

With cancerous cells a person can live their natural lives without ever having one cell become malignant or any form of treatment. This is because it is natural too the body.

Well, alongside the info on its origin in monkeys, i found the more common explanation of the origin of AIDs which occurred IN west Africa when a doctor was testing a polio vaccine that used simian tissue (containing SIV) and so it spread.

That is genetically impossible. There is no way SIV can infect humans the virus would have had to have mutated. What are you saying the trained doctor did with the tissue sample?

HIV-2 was contained because it is a separate virus as explained, and the people with it have clearly not spread it out to the world and it is not unlikely that the poor western Africans who cannot even afford the occasional condom remain in their homelands for the entirety of their undeservedly reduced lives.

HIV-1 and 2 are the same virus from two different origins they attack the same the only real difference is that HIV-2 is less virulent. If 2 is contained within Africa knowing its origins how is it 1 was able to spread? Remember now there was only a 20yr gap between the first reports identifying both. It is possible these diseases emerged at the same time in the same place given the origins, there is no real reason for 1 to be so wide spread an 2 to be contained.

And maybe you are right, HIV is an affective biological weapon, but the fact remains that it is very unselective. Those not able to acquire contraception are not poor, they are impoverished.

Definitions of Click>>Impoverished see synonyms of POOR<<Click You are arguing semantics and that does not benefit the dicussion.

Covert genocide does not need to be selective. It just needs to kill everyone of a particular race in a particular place. HIV-1 is a global pandemic. HIV-2 basically the same thing contained within West Africa and killing its people. So again tell me your point? Tell me how it isn't the perfect covert biological weapon?

And that does not single out gays or blacks either.
And again, the virus can easily move from said peoples to anyone else through simple indiscretion and whomever would release it would know this.

BUT your missing the point or refusing to address it. HIV-2 IS only killing West African's that is selective on a large scale where as HIV-1 is global this virus that can easily move from person to person is contained within a group of countries and for more than 40yrs has hardly if ever left the Country.

I still think it has too much destructive and unselective potential to spread that it is rather unlikely someone(s) would use it as an eradication device.

But HIV-2 is only in West Africa so explain that?

 

[Jackpot]

Alright I'm going to go a little out of order here.

For the cancer and all that stuff, I know what you're saying. The body specifically rejects/attacks the virus as opposed to what is seen in naturally occurring agents. I didn't mean to go so into detail with it, I guess I'm just longwinded.

As for SIV, I didn't go into full detail. The doctor did, as it is said, alter the SIV (or some other monkey genes that somehow contained SIV) to be used against polio in a test vaccine. Using it on the West African peoples. I am not saying that is the case, but it is a common argument, and a plausible one. But yes, in this case he would have altered it for it to have effect on humans.

The fact that both HIVs are rooted in Africa and one spread to the world does not exactly mean that it was spread as a means of eradication, just that it spread, it really only takes one to spread it and will branch off slowly at first then rapidly from there. I don't know, this part is kind of guessing game, it could be any number of reasons, and human influence can't be entirely ruled out.

Definitions of Click>>Impoverished see synonyms of POOR<<Click You are arguing semantics and that does not benefit the dicussion.

Covert genocide does not need to be selective. It just needs to kill everyone of a particular race in a particular place. HIV-1 is a global pandemic. HIV-2 basically the same thing contained within West Africa and killing its people. So again tell me your point? Tell me how it isn't the perfect covert biological weapon?

By poor v. impoverished, I only meant that it is a VERY poor person who cannot afford contraception, especially in modern countries (as opposed to 3rd world ones). HIV-1 I would say is very unlikely to be used for genocide (not sure if you are disagreeing). HIV-2, while contained to West Africa, I just don't see West Africa being the target of many people, esp. not the American govt. or the church, maybe someone though. Its not the perfect covert biological weapon because it cannot be at all contained and as of yet remedied, and therefore can and has easily spread across race, sexual preference, sex, etc. and threatens everyone. And the lives of everyone is a big risk to put on the table compared to anything this world has otherwise seen (again, not utterly impossible, maybe the evils in this world have come to this end). And again, despite however HIV-1 spread, I don't think that many West Africans are having sex with, giving blood for, breastfeeding, sharing needles with, or birthing people of the rest of the world. But if they did, yes I believe that it would spread. Again, my main question on this would be who would target West Africa specifically? Skin color is only so uch a part of racism, usually racism towards blacks pertains to those within one's borders, and I do not think the West Africans were a threat to the world, nor a noticeable part of it (comparitively), nor are they percieved as sexoholics or junkies.

It is interesting that you still think that there may have been some human version of an Immunodeficiency Virus. Any reason for that assumption? Also if there was wouldn't we be more immune to HIV given that the majority of Immunodefieciecy Virus's all attack in the same way? Part of the reason why they are grouped.

Like I said, for much of human history there have been cases of an unknown illness inflicting on people that cause symptoms strikingly similar to HIV. The victims have been prone to other sickness, get sweats and/or chills, contract fevers, lose weight and weaken. And many of these people have died. And oddly enough, it seemed not to occur after the 19th century or so, the next being the one in which HIV/AIDs appeared (making my previous assumption all to easy). Maybe it is a similar IV, maybe not, but the similarities at least are there. But you are right that a greater immunity could therefore be expected, hard to say not being in the medical, biological, genetic, or any related field, such things can work in mysterious ways. I know only that I don't have the answer.

 

[DonDaddyD]

As for SIV, I didn't go into full detail. The doctor did, as it is said, alter the SIV (or some other monkey genes that somehow contained SIV) to be used against polio in a test vaccine. Using it on the West African peoples. I am not saying that is the case, but it is a common argument, and a plausible one. But yes, in this case he would have altered it for it to have effect on humans.

That makes no sense. Did he alter the Monkey Cell/gene/DNA OR did he alter the virus? They are two different things. If he altered the Monkey Cell/gene/DNA there is no reason for the virus to mutate with it. Not the first time round anyway. To artificially alter a virus it would take time and specific alteration to the Virus not an external source.

HIV-1 I would say is very unlikely to be used for genocide (not sure if you are disagreeing). HIV-2, while contained to West Africa, I just don't see West Africa being the target of many people, esp. not the American govt. or the church, maybe someone though.

I never said HIV-1 would be a wise choice for genocide. HIV-2 being less VIRULENT is however a good choice for covert genocide.

I never said the American Government would target West Africa. But you must be seriously blind to think that someone somewhere couldn't justify the genocide of black people out of racism and hate.

Its not the perfect covert biological weapon because it cannot be at all contained and as of yet remedied, and therefore can and has easily spread across race, sexual preference, sex, etc. and threatens everyone.

AGAIN explain how HIV-2 is only FOUND and completely CONTAINED in West Africa and could kill off/infect almost everyone in the respective countries? IF lets say some East African General licensed the use of the use of the biological weapon to plague and eventually kill off the population of East Africa and then claim it as his own.. he is doing a bloody good job.

And again, despite however HIV-1 spread, I don't think that many West Africans are having sex with, giving blood for, breastfeeding, sharing needles with, or birthing people of the rest of the world.

Not now no, not with a World wide acknowledgment of a plague raping through the country. However 40yrs ago when some were still being raped by Europeans I beg to differ...don't say they weren't.

Again, my main question on this would be who would target West Africa specifically? Skin color is only so uch a part of racism, usually racism towards blacks pertains to those within one's borders, and I do not think the West Africans were a threat to the world, nor a noticeable part of it (comparitively), nor are they percieved as sexoholics or junkies.

That is the most terribly naive, blinkered, shortsighted thing I've heard from you ever. You are going to tell me that racism isn't only about skin colour. Skin colour and/or other distinguishing physical features THE THINGS THAT ARE VISIBLY DIFFERENT BETWEEN HUMANS is what fuels racism.

Racism hate isn't fuelled by fear that a person could be a threat. Racism is because people are afriad of people who look physically different.

West African's do not have to be a threat, to be the target of hate. The black people who have suffered racism are not a target because they are a threat. And as for borders do you think if I go to a racist country you think they aren't going to be racist towards me because I'm British, because I'm telling you they are going to be racist towards me because I'm black.

I can't be bothered to go over it with you.....

 

[Jackpot]

DDD: Did he alter the Monkey Cell/gene/DNA OR did he alter the virus?

OPV AIDS hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
According to the oral polio vaccine (OPV) AIDS hypothesis, the AIDS pandemic originated from live polio vaccines prepared in chimpanzee tissue cultures (at least some of which were almost certainly contaminated with chimpanzee SIV) which were administered to up to one million Africans between 1957 and 1960. The specific populations, who may not have been properly informed of the risks before volunteering for the vaccination, were the first in the world to experience HIV-1 infections and AIDS some five to twenty years later.

In particular, the CHAT experimental oral vaccine is claimed to have been contaminated with simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a group of viruses endemic to African primates and widely accepted as the origin of HIV. Recent evidence shows that CHAT may have been concentrated in African facilities using tissue cultures made from chimpanzee kidneys (more importantly, utilizing chimpanzee serum, containing macrophages, the target of immunodefficiency viruses).

Proponents of the OPV AIDS hypothesis include journalist Edward Hooper, as well as scientists Louis Pascal and the late W.D. Hamilton.

The alternative, generally accepted natural transfer hypothesis holds that AIDS was accidentally spread to humans through the hunting and eating of the chimpanzee.

I am not saying it is definitely the case, but it is at least possible.

As for someone trying to claim Western Africa, maybe, but that person is more than likely dead or elderly. If you say Europeans were raping Africans still in the 60s I'll believe it, but remember it was not as widespread then, that was when it originated in a select group of individuals.

Yes, racism is skin deep in much sense, guess I should have been more careful on a touchy issue, poor arguement. But at the same time, active racism is usually different, you usually don't do things to people out of racism unless they are near you (in the case of a racist). Hitler and the Nazis hated the Jews...he eradicated those in Germany and on as they conquered other nations through imperialism. American Southerners during slavery hated, abused, killed, and eventually feared blacks, but they were not in Africa so those blacks were irrelevent. The medieval British hated the Irish and treated them poorly, on soil they claimed. The Muslims offended by the Dutch cartoons did not go and attack the Dutch, they attacked the Dutch Embassy in their land. Indians and Pakistani hold strong racism against one another, and so they war in the Kushmir region where power dispute is held. And on and on. Yes, racism results in violence, but usually, especially on a large level, that racism only extends as far as the nation does, in effect.

 

[Lawless]

There is a difference between a hate crime and racism. In the example of the muslim trashing the Dutch embassy that would be for lack of better a crime of passion in that they were offended on their only 'rational' target was one on their soil. It's not like 100,000 muslims could jump on a plane and attack the Netherlands. Of course even if the could I'd bet money half would talk themselves out of it before paying for the flight.

A hate crime as far as I've ever read about tend to be crimes of 'passion' in that all of a sudden the instigators just get mad and want to make someone pay. Racism tends to be a long ranged pattern of behavior.

If the true purpose of AIDS is to kill off blacks then releasing the strain in Africa makes sense to a degree. Nevermind the 'colateral damage' Africa has been a hotbed of civil war and strife for decades now. Warlords and there army rape and pillage villages giving their victims the virus who unfortunately spread it, often unknowingly to others. Nevermind the fact a quarter of the continents been at war with itself since the 70s. Anyway if that is the reason AIDS was created that is an act of racism.

 

[Jackpot]

Yes, hate crimes and racism are different, but I don't think that changed what I said so much. Whether one's reasoning is sudden passion or deeply rooted racism, usually (based on history) racism is contained to the boundaries of a nation, which doesnt rule out all manmade genocide, but I believe it relieviates the idea that it was the US or another govt. that did it as it is not their land to do such a thing, nor did they declare war. a crime of passion is not at all comparable to genocide if that's what you mean (though i dont tihnk you do), as my examples show..the Holocaust, Indian-Pakistani dispute, Anglo-Irish, etc. The racism may spread, but the action taken remains within its borders. Like now, for example, there is at least some racism between English/Northern Irish and Southern Irish, but only so much action is taken because Ireland is outside the UK and war is not declared. I know Im starting to sound like poster boy for trusting a govt. but history has given me no reason to think otherwise.

So with foreign govt.'s ruled out, in my opinion that leaves two remaining proposals: the church and someone in Western Africa.

The church is unlikely because if Western Africa is tied to Manhattan, that WAS the US govt. not the church, but then, Manhattan is in the US, so maybe that did involve some foulplay.

And in Africa like I said, the person by now would be elderly or dead, spread a very dangerous virus that is transmitted rather easily. AND if the person is from west africa, it is likely they are racist against West Africans, maybe there is a white-black thing within that area, but I haven't heard of such problems in western africa.

I dont know, you all have definitely inflicted a shadow of doubt in my mind, but until there is some concrete evidence that someone was behind the virus released it for racist cause, I'll remain on my side of the fence. There is the possibility there, the motive to some extent, the means, the effect, but i would want to know the perpetrator. We shall see if that insect ever climbs out of the woodwork.

 

[DonDaddyD]

There is hardly if at all any racism between English/Northern Irish and Southern Irish. There aren't racist slurs, public hate, nothing. The troubles there has more to do with politics and religous belifes. I know! I live in England and am friends with a Southern Irish family that live in London and I frequent a very popular Irish Pub. An Irish person can mostly walk anywhere in England with an Irish accent and not run the risk of racial abuse.

The problem is between an extremist political group who are also driven by religion and the problem isn't about race! They are all white people. Please give examples you have a personal knowledge/experience about.

Hitler actively exterminanting Germans throughout most of Europe was not within his borders, though they may have been German occupied, the point is moot because they were still recognised forgien countries.

I do not know enough of the Indian-Pakistani dispute to comment, I do know that there have been disputes in England. But for the most part over here they are unified by the sweeping racism dealt there way.

Your view on active racism is so clinical and text book it reeks of having no real personal experience or a personal direct affinity to any race who has truly been affected by racism.

Racism is not justified by direct actions or violence, its justified with hate against other races. Hate is an abstract and therefore transcends boundaries/borders. In short racism has no borders except for the one inside the racists mind. That is why acts of racism is felt by those a continent away. I being in England hear of a racist attack in France, is it not racism from my perception because (i) it wasn't directed at me (ii) I'm a continent away? It IS still racism and it is still felt by me because a person/s of my people have been victimised by that what categorises us together our cultural identity and our race.- The very things we are proud of being and the very thing we have spent our life being.

You do not share the thoughts 'shit that could be me' or 'that could have been that member of my family who lives there'. So please do not tell me about how the percieved crimes against my people in other Countries should not be seen as racist by me.

End of discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------