AIDS

[Ziggy]

sorry for the lacking of an opening post,

what is your take on the theory that aids was manmade by the us government to take out specific groups of people? i have seen evidence for both sides, but am still not sure where i stand. what are your thoughts?

[Umoja]

I doubt it was made by the US government specifically.

But I do find it a very strange disease on the surface. The WHO distributes a worldwide vaccine for Small Pox in the 70's. It's basically not a choice to get the vaccine, so in theory many vaccines could have been laced with AIDS.

The main theory is that it came from monkeys. I think that's bullshit. If it did jump from monkeys why then? The disease has the potential to wipe out a huge portion of the monkeys in a few years.... besides that why did it catch on with gays as well?

[Anarchist Freedom]

I dont like the idea that aids is an epidemic thats my only major thing. The black plauge was a an epidemic killing everyone striking anyone no matter what precautions you take.Aid is preventable its called a condom because 90% of the time its from unprotected sex.







CGLM!

[FatFreeMilk]

what is your take on the theory that aids was manmade by the us government to take out specific groups of people? i have seen evidence for both sides, but am still not sure where i stand. what are your thoughts?

WTF? I've never heard that one before.

In Catholic "school" they used to lecture us not sexually active 11 year olds that condoms do not prevent AIDS because the pores in a condom are big enough to let the AIDS virus through. True ?

[Ziggy]

hah the catholic church is at it again, condoms do work and dont let anyone tell ya otherwise

[ComradeChris]

Any exchange of fluids that can potentially contain DNA can cause the Aids virus to spread. For some reason saliva doesn't, even though skin flakes are constantly falling off (I think the saliva itself kills the DNA, but I don't know fo sure why it isn't a point of contraction). You're correct to assume that unprotected sex is the primary form of contraction of the desease. There are very few cases where blood getting into someone else body as a form of contraction. This is because of the increased awareness of the desease in the Western world, so anytime someone is bleeding, they cover and clean the bleeding immediately (primarily at workplaces, sporting places, etc.). This is also why there are large numbers of "condom drives," if you will, to give condoms to places like Africa and promote safe sex, where Aids is rampant.

I, however, only recently heard that it was the Small Pox vaccine that introduced the Aids virus. If anyone has any further articles on how they came to that conclusion, I'm rather interested.

[Ziggy]

i've been having trouble finding the name of the dr. that first brought it up, but i remember that one of the first groups to receive the vaccine was a test group in new york city. i also remember that most of them were gay men, but i might be wrong this is only from memory.

[Guerrilla22]

I actually like this theory, however there really is no way that it could be possible. For one thing, what would be the point of it? It would make sense for the Chinese government or the Indian government to create such a disease, because they have huge problems with over population. What would be the motivation behind it? On top of that, of the 36 million some known cases of people with AIDS, 25 million of them live in Africa, hard to explain how this could be the case if it was something that the US government started and unleashed on its own population?

[Saint-Just]

The problem in Africa regards African males who sleep with prostitutes and other women as well as their wives. I think they need to change their attitude rather than wear condoms since cheating on your wife again and again is bad practice.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Any exchange of fluids that can potentially contain DNA can cause the Aids virus to spread

Wrong. HIV is a retrovirus; DNA has nothing to do with it.

The virus normally only spreads through blood, semen, vaginal fluid and breast milk.

[QUOTE](I think the saliva itself kills the DNA, but I don't know fo sure why it isn't a point of contraction)

Wrong. Saliva contains trace amounts of the HIV virus but not enough to be considered anactual threat by the CDC.

As of now the CDC only has one case of HIV being transfered through saliva.


Anyway, the theory of the government developing the virus and distributing it to "undersireables" is absolute nonsense.

What people fail to realise is how viruses are introduced to the human population; viruses such as HIV and many others are generally carried by a very specific groups of animals that have evolved an immunity to the virus over millions of years.

As the human population expands further and further into pristine wilderness, eventually they will come into contact with new species of animals that could possibly carry viruses that are harmful to humans.

This well documented phenomenon is very common.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by FatFreeMilk@Jul 15 2004, 07:59 AM

WTF? I've never heard that one before.

In Catholic "school" they used to lecture us not sexually active 11 year olds that condoms do not prevent AIDS because the pores in a condom are big enough to let the AIDS virus through. True ?

Sheep skins condoms pores are too big and let the virus in, just not the sperm, but Aids is very small.
I am not sure the rubber ones even have pores.

[ComradeChris]

[quote]Originally posted by Comrade RAF@Jul 17 2004, 01:20 AM

Wrong. HIV is a retrovirus; DNA has nothing to do with it.

The virus normally only spreads through blood, semen, vaginal fluid and breast milk.

(I think the saliva itself kills the DNA, but I don't know fo sure why it isn't a point of contraction)

Wrong. Saliva contains trace amounts of the HIV virus but not enough to be considered anactual threat by the CDC.

As of now the CDC only has one case of HIV being transfered through saliva.

You need to have the virus in a cell that has access to the host DNA. I understand it's not DNA itself that sends it. You need to change the DNA in the cell so that it produces the Aids virus, then the cell dies. DNA is needed, or the virus would be extinct.

Ok, thanks for clearing up the saliva issue. I didn't know. I said I didn't know. You don't need to say I was wrong, I was speculating. jeesh! I thought small amounts of the virus could escape from skin flakes in the mouth. I said that. I just didn't know why it didn't seem to spread. And because there is so little of the virus doesn't mean anything. It can only take one viral strain (from contact anywhere) to enter your body and you can be infected.

I think this is an interesting new theory myself. And as I said in my reply, if anyone is able to provide links or book titles that discuss the issue that would be great.

[Vinny Rafarino]

You need to have the virus in a cell that has access to the host DNA. I understand it's not DNA itself that sends it. You need to change the DNA in the cell so that it produces the Aids virus, then the cell dies. DNA is needed, or the virus would be extinct.

Retroviruses like HIV do not replicate like a standard virus.

Retroviruses contain RNA and DNA polymerase. The DNA polymerase is an enzyme that makes a copy of DNA from the RNA. Once the copy is made, the retrovirus uses the host cell to replicate more of the retrovirus. It accomplishes this by "injecting" the new DNA strand directly into the host cell's nucleus.

The host cell's do not "die"; they now only replicate more of the retrovirus.

But you are right on one issue, DNA is required for a retrovirus to replicate itself.

And because there is so little of the virus doesn't mean anything. It can only take one viral strain (from contact anywhere) to enter your body and you can be infected.

It is relevant because a retrovirus is very fragile and cannot survive very long one it is exposed to the air. The reason saliva does not normally transfer the retrovirus is that the retrovirus has been completely destroyed prior to having a chance to infect another person.

Think of it like playing the odds, the more retrovirus contained in a sample, the better the chances of one retrovirus will survive. The lower the amount, the better the chances that none will survive.

[ComradeChris]

I know what a retrovirus does. And as I said, I can look up precise details if I wish. But now that you aren't calling me an idiot and telling me what I do and don't know, you're much more tolerable. I thank you for that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

But now that you aren't calling me an idiot

That is a lie.

Quote me anywhere where I called you an idiot.

I know what a retrovirus does.

If you knew what a retrovirus "does" then you would not have mistakenly said that the host cell dies once it is infected with the retrovirus. If you knew what a retrovirus "does" then you would know how it replicates.

[Hate Is Art]

Is there any solid evidence, not just speculation, on the creation and early spread of the AIDS virus.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Digital Nirvana@Jul 18 2004, 07:00 PM
Is there any solid evidence, not just speculation, on the creation and early spread of the AIDS virus.

Not really. There are a couple of quacks out there, one a Harvard professor, that claim to have empirical evidence that implicates the USA and the former USSR in hatching a plan to use the AIDS virus (secretely developed by racist mad-scientists working for the CIA no less ) to wipe out the population of blacks.

They even have their "evidence" posted on several web-sites.. (no actual government documents though, just claims)

The only connection they have really made is that there were a group of chimps that were used for producing the hepatitis vaccine that was used in Africa and New York at the time the HIV epidemic began that were known to be infected with many other viruses. (remember what I said about deforestation)

This is probably the true source of the virus however the odds that the virus was lab created by racist scientist that were employed by the CIA to wipe out all black people is highly unlikely. Chances are that these select group of chimps have always carried the virus but had never been captured by humans and used for medical purposes before.

Considering the environment in which chimps live and the use of chimps to create vaccines for humans was a technology that was only a few decades old, I believe it is the correct version of events that led to the HIV epidemic.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's an article, with resources, on the supposed man-made origin of AIDS http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc754.html

Here's one on a Libyan court's decission to sentence five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor to death for infecting hundreds of children with the AIDS virus in an attempt to 'find a cure for the disease'.
http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc4443.html

And HIV Infection On The Rise In Black Women http://www.guerrillafunk.com/thoughts/doc3545.html

Draw your own conclusions.

btw in the US, African-Americans represent 12 percent of the population but account for more than half of all new HIV infections.

[Vinny Rafarino]

btw in the US, African-Americans represent 12 percent of the population but account for more than half of all new HIV infections.

Are you trying to say that the US government is still intentionally infecting blacks with the virus?

Because as we all know, the majority of the initial cases in the USA back in the late 70's and early eightees were homosexual caucasian males, so obviously they were not the "target" then.

I any case, the infection rate in whites are just under that of blacks.

From 1998 until 01 Jan 2004 the CDC reports the following statistics;

Number of cases of infection in Blacks (including deaths): 877,572 cases

Number of cases of infection in Whites (including deaths): 858,131 cases

If you believe that some conspiracy exists to control the population growth of blacks due to the volume of cases then you must also feel that their is a conspiracy to control the population growth of whites because the number of reported cases are almost identical.

Population percentages are not applicable due to the simple fact the government still has us living in highly segregated areas and also intentionally limits the quality of education in low income communities.

The only way it to matter is if we lived in a completely diverse controlled environment with equal social, educational and medical facilities. Anyone who lives in the US knows that is definitely not the case here.



I've read all the evidence from both the sides and am more impressed with the OPV hypothesis. I am however not ruling out the possibility of "human intervention" in regards to the mutation of SIV into HIV. (not for genocidal use mind you)

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by Comrade RAF@Jul 18 2004, 05:26 AM

That is a lie.

Quote me anywhere where I called you an idiot.





If you knew what a retrovirus "does" then you would not have mistakenly said that the host cell dies once it is infected with the retrovirus. If you knew what a retrovirus "does" then you would know how it replicates.

You haven't called me an idiot, but your demeanor certainly says it. After every sentence I say you're like wrong. Not taking into account what I have said before and after it.

The cell produces so much of the virus it is destroyed. I don't know about you, but that sounds like dying to me.

I did a project on viruses. I know what they do. They have a protein capsule. They land on the cell membrane and then inject their DNA into the host cell. The cell then integrates the viral DNA into its own. The DNA of the viral strain tells the cell to start producing more of the virus. This is done until there is so many viruses the cell breaks. That's a pretty good summary if I don't say so myself. Now what were you arguing? Something you put in my mouth? Good for you.