Was AIDS manufactured by humans?

[Man of Shred]

[drewmandan]

No, it wasn't. Viruses evolve in nature.

[Mes Tarrant]

lol

[Man of Shred]

No, it wasn't. Viruses evolve in nature. viruses also are manufactured in laboratories. see bio-terrorism. not only was AIDS manufactured but ditributed through vaccines. CNN also covered the distribution of AIDS in other countries years ago. If people are capable of distributing AIDS. People are sick enough to manufacture it.

[Invader]

No, it wasn't. Viruses evolve in nature. Just because fires start in nature does not mean that we too cannot start fires.

[Original Poster]

Yes. And they purposely ship drugs to black neighborhoods, too. Is he serious?

[Minervas Phoenix]

No, it wasn't. Yes it was.

[drewmandan]

Yes it was. You'll believe anything as long as it sounds crazy and implausible.

[Invader]

You'll believe anything as long as it sounds crazy and implausible. I agree with you, genetic engineering is in fact crazy and implausible. That would explain why it is so popular in a field where crazy, heretical ideas are shunned. Amirite?

[drewmandan]

I agree with you, genetic engineering is in fact crazy and implausible. That would explain why it is so popular in a field where crazy, heretical ideas are shunned. Amirite? Genetic engineering in today's context refers to the minor modification of an already existing genome. To create HIV would require no less than the creation of the entire virus and its gene package from scratch. Biology has not come this far yet.

[Jeff777]

Biology has not come this far yet. Biology has not come this far yet (at least not in the sense that the general public has been made aware of.) Corrected.

[StonedApe]

I kind of doubt it. At least not on purpose. If they would have they probubly would have invented some vaccine for it and charged lots of money for it by now. But i do think that some things like autism and add were are caused from vaccinations, and likely done so intentionally. This would just be very difficult. Not neccisarly imposible but unlikely.

[Invader]

No, it wasn't. Viruses evolve in nature. To create HIV would require no less than the creation of the entire virus and its gene package from scratch. I'm hoping that you, too, see the conflict between these statements. You are suggesting that HIV is an entirely new virus that resembles no other virus closely enough to suppose that it may have been genetically derived from another previously existing virus. That is absolutely fine. But then to assume that HIV was the result of evolution... Well, it goes against your other assumption. Evolution would require that HIV had some other virus to evolve from, correct? And, were that the case, HIV could have been engineered from that 'other' virus. Evolution just doesn't spew out genetically alien species out of nowhere. I'm pointing that out in case you forgot to mention something you didn't get across earlier to justify your side of the argument. Otherwise, as they stand, your assumptions are somewhat contradictory.

[Oneironaut Zero]

To create HIV would require no less than the creation of the entire virus and its gene package from scratch. Biology has not come this far yet. I'm supposing the scientific community hasn't gotten the memo. Scientists Use DNA to Make Virus

[nitsuJ]

HIV, which causes AIDs, originated in some monkey. the reason the first person to get it was an african is probably because they killed the monkey and ate it.

[Man of Shred]

In the full movie where the clips are from They describe exactly how AIDS was created. You don't need a degree in biology to understand how it's done all you need to know is how to read. (and we're all aware of the literacy statistic in north america). Virus genomes were mapped quite a few decades ago. All a geneticist virologist would need to do is take a DNA fragment and program it with specific commands. He would then insert the DNA fragment into the rest of the DNA. The DNA would recognize the fragment as it's own structure. In the case of aids the commands encoded in the DNA fragment would disguise the persons own body as virulent agent. Therefore the immune system would attack the persons body thinking the persons body was a virus. Oh BTW for those of you open minded people who are concerned about vaccines and how dangerous they really are. here is a website with legal documents you can print out which are contracts to make you exempt from taking a particular vaccine. http://vaccinetruth.net/

[Man of Shred]

You'll believe anything as long as it sounds crazy and implausible. Elementary my dear Watson!

[nitsuJ]

In the full movie where the clips are from They describe exactly how AIDS was created. You don't need a degree in biology to understand how it's done all you need to know is how to read. (and we're all aware of the literacy statistic in north america). Virus genomes were mapped quite a few decades ago. All a geneticist virologist would need to do is take a DNA fragment and program it with specific commands. He would then insert the DNA fragment into the rest of the DNA. The DNA would recognize the fragment as it's own structure. In the case of aids the commands encoded in the DNA fragment would disguise the persons own body as virulent agent. Therefore the immune system would attack the persons body thinking the persons body was a virus. Oh BTW for those of you open minded people who are concerned about vaccines and how dangerous they really are. here is a website with legal documents you can print out which are contracts to make you exempt from taking a particular vaccine. http://vaccinetruth.net/ did you just ignore what i posted? HIV is what causes AIDs, you can't have AIDs without HIV and HIV originated from monkeys, not from a laboratory. The virus was at first named HTLV-III/LAV (human T-cell lymphotropic virus-type III/lymphadenopathy- associated virus) by an international scientific committee. This name was later changed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates. Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population when hunters became exposed to infected blood. as for the other type, HIV-2: HIV-2 for example corresponds to SIVsm, a strain of the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus found in the sooty mangabey (also known as the White-collared monkey), which is indigenous to western Africa. more about the discovery in 1999 that it came from primates: In February 1999 a group of researchers from the University of Alabama announced that they had found a type of SIVcpz that was almost identical to HIV-1. This particular strain was identified in a frozen sample taken from a captive member of the sub-group of chimpanzees known as Pan troglodytes troglodytes (P. t. troglodytes), which were once common in west-central Africa. The researchers (led by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama) made the discovery during the course of a 10-year long study into the origins of the virus. They claimed that this sample proved that chimpanzees were the source of HIV-1, and that the virus had at some point crossed species from chimps to humans. Their final findings were published two years later in Nature magazine. In this article, they concluded that wild chimps had been infected simultaneously with two different simian immunodeficiency viruses which had "viral sex" to form a third virus that could be passed on to other chimps and, more significantly, was capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS. These two different viruses were traced back to a SIV that infected red-capped mangabeys and one found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridisation took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after they hunted and killed the two smaller species of monkey. They also concluded that all three 'groups' of HIV-1 - namely Group M, N and O - came from the SIV found in P. t. troglodytes, and that each group represented a separate crossover 'event' from chimps to humans. as for your vaccines giving HIV to people to develop AIDs: Some other rather controversial theories have contended that HIV was transferred iatrogenically (i.e. via medical interventions). One particularly well-publicised idea is that polio vaccines played a role in the transfer. In his book, The River, the journalist Edward Hooper suggests that HIV can be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat, given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s. To be reproduced, live polio vaccine needs to be cultivated in living tissue, and Hooper's belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. This, he claims, would have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, and a large number of people subsequently becoming infected with HIV-1. Many people have contested Hooper's theories and insist that local chimps were not infected with a strain of SIVcmz that is closely linked to HIV. Furthermore, the oral administration of the vaccine would seem insufficient to cause infection in most people (SIV/HIV needs to get directly into the bloodstream to cause infection - the lining of the mouth and throat generally act as good barriers to the virus). In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV. A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat. While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven. The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that transferral must have happened in other ways too, as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out. More about when HIV came into being can be found below. information over the conspiracy theory (that it was man-made): Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people. Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Linked in to this theory is the belief that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved, the evidence given to back them up is usually based upon supposition and speculation, and ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959.

[Man of Shred]

You should really post a source. At least my source has someone admitting her brought it to the country. please post a link And I will try to dis credit it with more proof. (assuming there is any) You should also consider that the vaccines I am talking about Were administered witha needle not orally.

[Jeff777]

I have no evidence of this but I believe somewhere...some pharmeceutical company has already found the cure for HIV and Cancer...many many years ago. They spend billions of dollars funding expeditions to find new ways of "curing" people, then (in my opinion) spend years turning that "cure" into a lifetime treatment. My point being...if you were to be cured from cancer with a shot in the arm...that may cost you several thousand dollars much of which your health insurance would account for. However, if you were to be "treated" over the duration of the rest of your life...it would literally siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars from you and you still wouldn't be cured from Cancer or HIV etc. You know something is wrong with the world when you have a commercial advertising genetically altered food products that clog your arteries, and right after it you have a commercial advertising a pill or liquid supplement that claims to clear out your arteries from the commercial before it. Usually with men and women in typical doctor garb with a smile from ear to ear, to show their support of course. How many of you read the small little writing (usually in white) along the bottom of the screen when commercials like that come on? Like I said...I don't have any evidence, other than what I consider to be sources of credible hear say, to prove any of this but then again...metaphorically speaking of course...do you really need a dog that looks like a dog to tell you from it's lips that it's a dog...or can you deduce that it's a dog based on your presumed intelligent observation that it is in fact...a dog?

[Original Poster]

I was undecided but the responses by skeptics have convinced me AIDS was manufactured. It's kind of funny though, right-wing religious nuthole radicals say God made aids to punish black and agys, god caused 9/11 to punish gays and liberals, god caused hurrican katrina to punish blacks and gays, etc... Left wing radicals say the government created aids to punish black people, caused/allowed/indirectly caused 9/11 because to punish brown people and did nothing about hurricane katrina to punish black people, etc... Just saying.

[Man of Shred]

I have no evidence of this but I believe somewhere...some pharmeceutical company has already found the cure for HIV and Cancer...many many years ago. They spend billions of dollars funding expeditions to find new ways of "curing" people, then (in my opinion) spend years turning that "cure" into a lifetime treatment. My point being...if you were to be cured from cancer with a shot in the arm...that may cost you several thousand dollars much of which your health insurance would account for. However, if you were to be "treated" over the duration of the rest of your life...it would literally siphon hundreds of thousands of dollars from you and you still wouldn't be cured from Cancer or HIV etc. You know something is wrong with the world when you have a commercial advertising genetically altered food products that clog your arteries, and right after it you have a commercial advertising a pill or liquid supplement that claims to clear out your arteries from the commercial before it. Like I said...I don't have any evidence other than what I believe as credibly hear say sources to prove any of this but then again...metaphorically speaking of course...do you really need a dog that looks like a dog to tell you from it's lips that it's a dog...or can you deduce that it's a dog based on your presumed intelligent observation that it is in fact...a dog? you, my friend are a critical thinker. I've noticed the same thing. Today i was at a magazine stand. I picked up a mens health magazine. Normally i don't read those. BUT i spotted Rx in the title and thought. "Rx? where have i heard that before isn't that something to do with pharmacies?" I opened the mag.... Half the mag was advertizments for supposed medical breakthrough pills and energy drinks. Methinks steroids would be better for you.

[nitsuJ]

You should really post a source. At least my source has someone admitting her brought it to the country. please post a link And I will try to dis credit it with more proof. (assuming there is any) You should also consider that the vaccines I am talking about Were administered witha needle not orally. my main source was curehiv. CureHIV's Website. http://www.curehiv.us/HIV-origin.htm Avert's Website. http://www.avert.org/origins.htm National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases' Website. http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsr.../hivorigin.htm Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Website. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa3.htm i'd say if you do prove that it didn't come from monkeys, you should contact the CDC since their website will be wrong. since that's a government thing, they shouldn't be posting false information.

[Kushna Mufeed]

since that's a government thing, they shouldn't be posting false information.

[Man of Shred]

i checked your sources and they are pretty good. I did find a counter argument to your facts. I can't say i agree 100%. Although the CDC is an obvious BS organization. just look at the homosexual stereo typing in this section of their website. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm . They also have a section for hispanic people. in other words they are telling you to "fear spics 'cause thay hayuve the Aids!!! Ahyuck" HIV also effects drug addicts in slums big time. Where's the section for drug addicts????? the article by dr len can be found here: http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20000706.htm HIV/AIDS Dates Back to 1930s? a response by Dr. Len Horowitz A number of individuals have relayed articles to me, or my staff, regarding recent stories in the media concerning a Los Alamos National Laboratory investigation that is said to have disproved the thesis that HIV/AIDS owes its existence largely to monkey virus contaminated polio vaccines administered during the 1950s. Not only does this study by Korba et al., NOT disprove this possibility, but typical of counter-intelligence propaganda campaigns sponsored by the British and American governments, these pronouncements are deceptive and distract us from the gravest issues at hand. One critic of the man-made theory of HIV/AIDS, “Science Editor” Nigel Hawkes, wrote an article entitled “Scientists trace origin of HIV back to 1930s.” Hawkes' article began: “The AIDS virus had reached the human population by 1931, and possibly much earlier, according to a team of British and American scientists. “They worked out that today's strains of HIV had a common ancestor about 70 years ago. If true, this means that the virus cannot have originated in a polio vaccination programme in Africa in the late 1950s, as a controversial theory claims. By then it was already established in Africa. “A 'family tree' of HIV was created using the variation between today's strains as a clock to calculate the time it has had to evolve. “Since genes change at a constant rate, it is possible to work back and estimate when the main strains split off from a common origin. “Writing in Science, researchers led by Bette Korba, from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, worked out that this probably happened between 1915 and 1941. The most likely year was 1931. “The possibilities are that it was transmitted from apes to human beings near the turn of the century and remained isolated in a small population until that time, or that the virus jumped to humans in about 1930 and started spreading immediately, or some years later. “In either case, the conclusions argue against the idea championed by Ed Hooper in his book The River that polio vaccine grown on cells from chimpanzees was the prime cause of the epidemic. This theory is now being tested by examining samples of the vaccine to see if they contain HIV. . .” Analysis: Notice the first sentence is completely misleading. It states that British and American scientists have determined that “The AIDS virus had reached the human population by 1931.” In fact, they found no virus dating back to that period. What they found, at best, was intimated in the second paragraph -- “a common ancestor.” This is not news. Many “common ancestors” link HIV to a variety of retroviruses, according to scientific reports. In all of these studies, GENE SEQUENCES, and not entire viral genomes (i.e., not whole viruses) were analyzed and/or compared. HIV ancestors include gene sequences from bovine, mouse, and human leukemia viruses, sheep visna, chicken sarcoma, and many, many other viruses that have been evolving for thousands of years. So how did Korba et. al., pinpoint 1931 as the year HIV allegedly jumped species? Working backwards in time, they ASSUMED a standard rate of genetic mutation occurred among the strains of HIV. Herein lies a principle problem directing the implied conclusion that HIV must have jumped species long before polio vaccine administration in the 1950s or 1960s. The natural rate of genetic viral mutation is much slower than under iatrogenic (i.e., man-made) recombination conditions. In other words, in cell cultures, or in multi-virus infected humans, such viruses can and often do recombine, and/or mutate extensively, possibly overnight. That means, working backwards in time, as Korba et al. did, ASSUMING a standard rate of genetic mutation, a far earlier date would be falsely projected for the HIV species jump than might have actually occurred due to iatrogenic causes such as contaminated vaccines and/or biological weapons tests. “Our analyses suggest,” but do not prove, Korba et al. wrote, “that HIV-1 M group ancestral sequence occurred decades before the vaccination programmes and that the diverse subtypes were well established by 1957.” Thus spin doctors speculated that the virus went undetected in Africa for 25 to 60 years. Further, the investigators theorized, given this earlier date of HIV sequence evolution, that by the time the polio vaccine was administered, at least nine subtypes of HIV had already been established. If the vaccine campaign had induced the pandemic, they theorized, all nine strains would have been transferred to humans. Since the virus in chimpanzees is rare, and only a few primate kidneys were used to grow the vaccine, they concluded the polio/AIDS theory “seems implausible.” The above is a great example of the “Hegelian dialectic” used in standard medical/scientific propaganda. In this counterintelligence mass mind control scheme a false thesis (i.e., HIV was spread by the polio vaccine) is followed by a false anti-thesis (i.e., the Korba et al. report) to produce “synthesis,” that is, mass confusion and disorientation. Overlooked is the unique epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. The fact is, this bizarre complex immune suppressive cancer virus and illness struck two unique populations, virtually simultaneously: New York's gay men and Central African Blacks, during the mid to late 1970s. What best explains the triggering of this unique outbreak in those populations at that precise time, is not, by intent, part of the spin doctors' debate. It was not the polio vaccine, but the hepatitis B vaccine, produced in contaminated chimpanzees and polio vaccine recipients, then administered to these unique populations in 1974 to 1975, that best explains the unique epidemiology and origin of the AIDS pandemic. Therefore, where is the debate regarding hepatitis B and AIDS? How did Hooper miss this important hepatitis B vaccine link to his principle thesis? How could he have overlooked this author's definitive text, Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 1998). In this “Hegelian dialectic,” the complete truth is omitted by deceptive, distractive, propagandist intent. Later this year, 2000, the scientific peer reviewed journal of Medical Hypothesis will publish a paper entitled “Polio, Hepatitis B and AIDS: An Integrative Theory on a Possible Vaccine Induced Pandemic.” This analysis of HIV/AIDS origin theory is based largely on the documentation advanced in my text. The report examines what has been grossly omitted from public and scientific debate concerning theories on the man-made origin of AIDS. Critical readers are encouraged to table final judgment until this time.