RedDevil, you've already been apprised of our forum rules (publicly and privately) and received a warning for resorting to personal attacks. It's most unwise to spoof other members' usernames for the purposes of insulting them. This sort of behavior will not be tolerated here.

Your account has been suspended for 48 hours for violating our civility & decorum guidelines.
Upon your return, continued personal attacks will result in the termination of your account.

Excellent counter Yodalover28. It is nice to be able to reply to someone who actually knows something about the issue.

You are correct of course; the sample studied was from the 10A-11 pool, along with a sample from Pool 13 (which was also used in the Congo) (Note pool 8 or 9 was also used in the Congo, but was unavailable for testing). The questions, then, are whether or not this pool sample reflects the use of the vaccine in Africa, and whether or not the CHAT vaccine was manufactured there.

The premise of The River is that there was a need for a sudden, large batch of CHAT vaccine that was not readily available for dispersion in the Congo in '57-58, and that to get the required dosages, kidney cells from chimpanzees were used in Wistar's Stanleyville lab to mass produce the required dosage. These kidney cells were linked to Dr Ghislain Courtois at a place called Lindi, near Stanleyville, who ran a chimpanzee camp that was established to test the adequacy of the CHAT vaccine, by first immunizing the chimpanzees using the CHAT vaccine and then purposefully infecting the chimpanzees with live poliomyelitis virus to see if the vaccine worked to prevent actual infection. It is of some interest to note that the vaccine worked, and these same animals were used later in experiments studying hepatitis, encephalitis and other diseases.

Mr Hooper suggests that kidney samples removed from these animals were sent to either the Wistar lab in Phlidelphia or to their smaller lab in Belgium, and he bases this allegation on testimony he obtained from two veterinarians, Dr. L. Bugyaki and Dr. J. Mortelmans, both of whom worked at the Lindi camp. When questioned about the subject later, Dr Bugyaki states:

Dr Mortelman's was not even at the Lindi camp after 1956, however he also stated:

[source]

Alternatively, Hooper credits (accuses?) Dr. Gaston Ninane with attempting to cultivate chimpanzee cells at the Stanleyville lab, albeit he says the attempt was unsuccessful. Dr Ninane denies this allegation, stating that he did not try to make any cell cultures in Stanleyville at any time.

Mr Hooper also alleges that Dr. Paul Osterrieth, director of the virology laboratory in Stanleyville, used chimpanzee kidney culture to "whip up" a batch of CHAT for use in Burundi, however Dr Osterrieth denies this, stating:

So it would seem that no vaccine was produced in Africa. This would also seem to be confirmed by Dr Koprowshi himself, in a letter he sent to George Jervis in the Congo, who had written asking for additional vaccine to meet the shortfall in 1958. In a letter dated March 4, 1958 Koprowski promised to send as much vaccine as he had on hand, indicating it would be sent from his lab in the states. Of note is that he made no mention of any vaccine being available from Stanleyville nor anywhere else in Africa, instead noting that he would meet the "urgent" request by sending what he had available to him, all from the US.

Finally, the Stanleyville lab itself completed a report in 1958 (Annual Report, Congo Belge Laboratoire Medical Provincial, Stanleyville. Stanleyville, Congo Belge (Zaire): Congo Belge Laboratoire Medical Provincial, 1958) discussing its use of tissue culture during that year, wherein they state that they only studied baboon culture.

With regard to the use of Pool 10A-11, it should be noted that this pool was also used in Sweden, Switzerland and two communities in New Jersey. None of these shows any spike in HIV/AIDS. Pool 13 was used in Poland and New Jersey in addition to the Congo. Again, no spike.

As to the million doses, it should be noted that the vaccine was administered over a period of 4 years, not all in one go. The logistics of sending 5000 or so doses per week is much less daunting.

It is true that we will can never know for certain, as definate proof cannot be provided. Having said that, it still seems that on a balance of probablities, the CHAT vaccine was likely not respnsible for the proliferation of HIV.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Duane what happened to your old arguments? Now that it has been confirmed by your own peers that the sample provided by Wistar was erroneous as I stated, and could not be trusted as I stated, and that this evidence does not exonerate Wistar as I stated, you have now manufactured yet another bunch of red herrings to confuse the issue in yet further endless debate and arguments that are also erroneous.

1) You have claimed that because the CHAT vaccination program was initiated in 56 and the first case was reported in 59, that this mitigates Wistar as HIV generally has a 10 incubation period.

The fact is that HIV converts to AIDS sometimes within 1 year, and sometimes it takes 20 years, it all depends on the CCR5 gene in the host that regulates the susceptibility of the host. Thus this argument is very much in keeping with the CHAT OPV theory.

2) You have stated that chimps were not used to make the vaccine, and now your argument is that a facility close by was used to test the vaccine on chimps to see if it worked?

There was no question as to if the vaccine worked, because it had been well researched in the US, prior to 56, when it was being administered.

3) Your argument then seems to suggest that chimps were not used because they were thought hard to catch, yet in the next breath you state that just next door there was hundreds being used to check if CHAT was working?

You also state that these animals were used again for other tests.

On the contrary, these chimps were not being used for any other research, because they were dissected alive and the kidneys removed while under anesthetic that paralyzed them but left them consciousness and were reported to be talking while being dissected.

4) You state that the Chimps close by were not part of Koprowshi facility. However, lots of evidence is provided in the documentary, that followed on from the research in The River and visited the location, collected testimony from the animal keepers, the officials, and others who where there doing the dirty work, who all state quite categorically that the polio vaccine was manufactured there and that they dissected chimps alive to remove the kidneys (because this media is best suited to manufacturing CHAT).

Most damming of all is archive television video footage (from that time) that documents the work on the facility and the use of hundreds of chimpanzees.

Please see some further evidence by way of a few pictures taking at Koprowshi facility.

http://doris.sss.free.fr/chimp.jpg
http://doris.sss.free.fr/chimp2.jpg
http://doris.sss.free.fr/chimp3.jpg
http://doris.sss.free.fr/chimp4.jpg

I have more pictures just ask I will be happy to provide them.

for those interested the film origins of aids is now free here:

http://www.documentary-film.net/sear...stings.php?e=5

Correction--for those interested in what the filmmaker thinks are the origins of AIDS, given that there seems to be some information that directly contradicts that possibility. (Okay, a lot of information. Whatever.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I have watched the video, again. I saw it when it was orginally broadcast in Canada a couple of years ago, however I have to admit that watching it again with the ability to stop and replay as I desired was beneficial. I don't think RedDevil is going to like what I've discovered.

Much of the material has already been reviewed here, in my previous posts. As I suspected there was very little that was new in the video that has not already been dealt with. The documentary was very biased against Kaprowski and the medical establishment as a whole, something I don't understand. Regardless, there are a number of parts where I was astonished at how badly the conclusions arrived at were supported.

The only evidence introduced in the documentary that chimpanzee kidney culture was used in the manufacture of vaccine was comments from two "nurses" at the Lindi camp, Mr Bayello and Joseph Limbaya along with comments from Pierre Doupagne. The two workers never saw the kidneys being shipped, and both admitted they "thought" the kidney tissue was being removed "to be sent on somewhere" without ever knowing or seeing where it was sent, or even if it was sent. They gave no indication of what they thought the tissue was being used for, nor did either of them give any indication they knew, or even suspected, where it was being sent.

I am quoting Mr Doupagne as stated by the program (he is speaking English, but he is very hard to understand):

The narrator uses this comment in a way to suggest that Doupagne is trying to hide or gloss over the fact that kidney tissue was used in the process to manufacture the vaccine. He says no such thing, and both Dr Kaprowski and Dr Plotkin admit that chimpanzees at the Lindi camp were used to determine the efficiency of the vaccine before it was given to humans. This use, in the event there is any confusion, was to vaccinate a group, not vaccinate a control group, then introduce both to live, virulent polio virus to see if the vaccinated chimps demonstrated immunity. (ps--They did!)

Doupagne is then quoted further:

Again, the narrator uses this comment to suggest that this must mean something sinister, although what that sinister something is is only hinted at--I guess that it was used to manufacture CHAT vaccine. Again, nothing in the comments attributed to Doupagne even hint at such a conclusion, and he has categorically denied any knowledge of the use of chimpanzee tissue as a culture for CHAT or anything else. "To do what with, I don't know".

I have already pointed out the Dr Osterrieth denies that at any time he cultured CHAT at the Stanleyville lab, and in fact, he was not very successful in culturing any tissue, as the lab was simply too primative. Further, from Oct 57 to Jan 58 he was in the States taking a course. It takes a few months to get such cultures underway, and weeks or months more for the cultures to produce enough usable vaccine.

The program claims that tissue was harvested, for which they provide no collaborating evidence, then go on to insinuate that the harvested tissue was used as culture to grow vaccine, providing no evidence whatsoever. There is a name for such journalism...

One item which they point to to support this hypothesis is a document from 1959, wherein they claim it states 250,000 doses were "made" at Stanleyville for 250,000 people. I froze the page they did the closeup on, although unfortunantly the margins of both sides were cut off. I was, however, able to read enough of the page to get an understanding of what was being said (it's in French). The paper, if this is truly what they are relying on, is grossly misquoted.

The line in question reads "...??en le laboratoire a conditionne' et expedie 250.000 doses de...Usumbura." In the paragraph above that, it says "...de sang et de selles furent faite a l'occasion de...??ous afin d'en controler l'efficacite. Une petite partie de..??ous furent examinee a Stanleyville (of.supra) le reste fut??... ...??nborntoire de Leopoldville."

Although it is a bit disjointed, given words on both sides are cut off, I read it to say something like this

With regards to this passage, the narrator says: "We found the words '250,000 doses made for 250,000 people'". This document, as far as I can see, says no such thing.

They spend some time on discussing how the people were "forced" to take this vaccine, however how that ties into the premise "chat vaccine spread HIV" I don't know. Truly, a red herring. The people were forced to take the vaccine by the village chiefs because there was a polio empidemic feared.

The evidence for the CHAT vaccine as the cause of the spread of HIV, as postulated and supported by this program, fails miserably. They have conjecture and circumstancial evidence, and nothing more. The hard evidence they quote does not support thier premises, and they use innuendo to foster a feeling in the audience that something must be going on.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Gillianren I would welcome your new evidence to disprove the allegations made in The Origins of Aids. Given that Duane has lost his arguments so many times now and then shifted the debate to cover yet more red herrings and all while trying to claim that his arguments have in someway been proved or justified when clearly he keeps falling through the very thin ice plain that he lives.

Duane, thank you for your continued debate, I rather missed you after you long absence. I suspected you had decided not to continue this debate given your last arguments that "Chimps were not used at the Lindi Camp" was totally unsustainable and disproved by way of the evidence provided.

Given the number of red herrings you have introduced to this debate and the number of times your arguments have been proven incorrect, I am no longer surprised by your new waves of erroneous statements that you claim disprove the OPV AIDS theory and not least by this amazing set of claims you have just provided.

first up:
This is a complete and blatant lie. The documentary is a wash with evidence, not least archive television footage to prove that contrary to Kaprowski claims which in which he categorically states that he has 'never used chimpanzee in his live' and that chimps were not used to manufacture CHAT and further that chimpanzee was not the preferred medium because they were hard to obtain. The truth as Hooper proves with his overwhelming evidence is that actually chimps were used, and in fact it is well documented that up to 500 Chimps were used at Lindi alone.

Contrary to Kaprowski later claims that it was necessary to check the efficacy of the vaccine, (which had already been proven to work in his 10 years of study prior to its introduction).

This fact alone proves quite conclusively that Kaprowski is in fact trying desperately to cover his own tracks (by lying) and is actually guilty of making an error that is responsible for millions of deaths and billions in misery. If anyone has any doubts whatsoever about the use of chimps at Lindi they need only see the documentary and specifically the pictures taken at the time with the archive television footage showing Lindi a wash with Chimpanzees.

This comment is very telling. One does not need to establish further what other specific scientific knowledge that Mr Doupagne has with regard the processes of the manufacture. His evidence that 'chimpanzee was definitely involved' is enough in itself to make the point. The point is that chimpanzee was definitely used to make the vaccine. This claim can be further confirmed by the testimonies of the nurses that you have ignored which state that they removed the kidneys from the chimps while still alive. This as you know is because chimpanzee kidney was the best medium to grow the polio virus and produce the vaccine.

This is nonsense. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

So what is your alternative explanation of why there is documented evidence that proves 250K doses were made at Lindi? Are you suggesting these 250K doses were to be used for some other reason than to vaccinate the people?

Although I have RedDevil on ignore, and I will not respond to his attempts to engage me in a pointless exercise in frustration, given I chose to look at the following post, I will provide some comment.

A rather blusterous and obtuse statement. RedDevil seems to think I have some personal stake in this, erm, "debate", and that by taking personal potshots at me it will somehow bolster his argument. My discussion of this topic has been consistent throughout: to wit; there was evidence to suggest that HIV spread was facilitated by contaminated CHAT vaccine produced by the Wistar Corp. A review of the evidence and documentation produced to support the allegation suggests that this allegation was incorrect.

Based on the preponderance of evidence rule used in US Civil Court, were I on the jury I would find that the allegation does not pass the preponderence of evidence rule. In other words, on a balance of probabilities, the CHAT vaccine was probably not the cause of the sudden explosive spread of AIDS (assuming there was even an "explosive" spread").
(PS--you speak for gillianren? Seems to me she has her own voice...)

Well, thanks, except that I am not debating anything.

It was never, at any point, said that chimps were not used at the Lindi camp, and I resent your attempt to put words in my mouth. It has been said repeatedly that chimpanzee tissue was not used by Wistar to manufacture CHAT vaccine, that CHAT was only manufactured in the US, and that CHAT was not produced at the laboratories at Stanleyville or in Belgium, and I have simply pointed to evidence provided to support that assertaion. Get it through your head, it is not my argument.

Furthermore Camp Lindi was not part of the Stanleyville lab, it was an entirely different facility associated wiuth Wistar that was used to conduct experiments on a number of diseases, including a period from 1953 to ~56 where chimpanzee's reaction to the CHAT vaccine was also tested prior to its use on humans. That there were chimpanzees used at Camp Lindi does not lead to the conclusion that tissue from chimpanzees was used to produce CHAT in the US labs (or anywhere else, for that matter).


huh?

"Waves of erroneous statements"?

1.) This is a complete and blatant lie.

Perhaps you can point to some other evidence the documentary is "awash" with? The only evidence produiced by the documentary that I saw was the statements of Bayello and Limbaya that they saw tissue removed and "thought" is was to be sent "somewhere". It's in the documentary RedDevil, try watching it again.

2.) not least archive television footage to prove that contrary to Kaprowski claims which in which he categorically states that he has 'never used chimpanzee in his live'

Life you mean?

Listen to it again--he says, in responce to a question on the manufacture of CHAT, that chimpanzee was never used. While he does not specifically say "to manufacture CHAT" it can clearly be extrapolated that his comment was a responce to the question "Was chimpanzee tissue used to manufacture CHAT" not "Did you ever use chimpanzee for any purpose whatsoever during your 45 years as a medical researcher." This is a red herring, especially given that Dr Kaprowski has repeatedly said that chimpanzees were used in the testing trials of CHAT.

3.) and further that chimpanzee was not the preferred medium because they were hard to obtain.

Not hard to obtain, hard to maintain. Also expensive. Also hard to control. Also other smaller monkey species were more available. Also rhesus kidney was a better medium and more available in the US where the CHAT vaccine was manufactured.

4.) The truth as Hooper proves with his overwhelming evidence is that actually chimps were used, and in fact it is well documented that up to 500 Chimps were used at Lindi alone.

Yes, chimps were used at Lindi for the study of a number of different diseases. There is no evidence provided, however, to suggest that they or their tissue was used in the manufacture of CHAT vaccine. In fact, there is no evidence provided to suggest that chimpanzee tissue was used for anything beyond autopsy information, nor is there any empirical evidence provided that tissue left the camp. The only evidence given in the documentary is the statements of Bayello and Limbaya--and they only say they "think" it "might" have been sent "somewhere".

5.) Contrary to Kaprowski later claims that it was necessary to check the efficacy of the vaccine, (which had already been proven to work in his 10 years of study prior to its introduction).

You're grasping at straws. The video footage in the documentary was taken in 53-54 according to the documentary itself. Dr Koprowski was testing the vaccine continuously throughout the vaccination period and, in fact, well into the 60's. That tests were conducted at Camp Lindi between 53 and 56 shouldn't be (and isn't) a surprise.

Regardless, how does this show evidence that chimpanzee tissue was used to manufacture CHAT?

No such proof has been eluciated. Your slander is meaningless in the face of the lack of empirical (and hardly any other) evidence.


First, it appears Mr Doupagne has no scientific knowledge, and the documentary credits him with none. What is telling is the whole quote, taken in context: Q.) As you recall, were chimpanzees used to develope polio vaccine. A.) The chimpanzee was definately involved in the development of the polio vaccine, but at which point, at which level, I don't know a thing about it. emphasis added Seems unequivical to me--chimpanzees were used at some point, but he has no idea where or how.

Oh, you are an expert on tissue cultivation as available in the late 50's?

Regardless, the Stanleyville lab was not completed for use until 1957, at which time it was still not equipped. Dr Osterrieth states the lab was not equipped for tissue cultivation when he returned from a course he was on in the US from Oct 57 to Jan 58, and that he had to begin equipping it upon his return. Once equipped, he began to culture monkey and baboon culture, but found it to be relativelty unsuccessful due to the primitive conditions of the lab. This is all fairly easy to look into, and is undisputed in the documentary.

What documented evidence? I have shown what the document actually says, including an accurate translation. If you do not believe my translation (and I am not totally fluent in French) please ask someone else to do the translation. You can pull the document in question right off the documentary and satisfy yourself as to what it says.

The French word conditionne' does not mean made. It translates badly into English, but essentially means "completed" or "conditioned"--for eg, an unfinished two ingrediant shooter is "conditionne" when the first ingrediant has already been poured and you are adding the last ingrediant. It is "fini" when that is done.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

So to sum it all up then,

Your POV is that no vaccine was manufactured in Africa, that it was all manufactured in the US at the high tech Wistar lab and not by using chimpanzees. Then the vaccine was delivered to the Congo for infection of the people and at about the same testing on the chimpanzees at Lindi to see if it worked!

Your POV is that the Stanleyville lab was not equipped to manufacture CHAT.

Despite this it was a 'state of the art lab' that had just been completed.

Your POV is that the nurses whose testimony confirms that they dissected the chimpanzees alive and removed the kidneys alone for the production of the CHAT Vaccine then discarded the entire carcass were wrong in their heads?

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-6.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-2.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-1.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-7.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-15.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-16.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-17.jpg

With regards Gaston Ninane, microbiologist at Stanleyville, your POV warped as is your interpretation of the events.

.

This is a lie of the facts. Ninane does not deny making any cultures, for that was his job as a microbiologist in Stanleyville. He actually retracted his statement that he used chimpanzees instead clamming another monkey was used.

However, we have the evidence of Gaston Ninane himself. This is what he actually said in 92 before Hooper:

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-22.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-18.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-19.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-20.jpg

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-21.jpg

Clearly this evidence is conclusive. Ninane only retracts this later when he realizes the gravity of his own statement. You do not need to be a member of the exclusive royal society (whose impartiality is very much in question) to judge that this evidence alone can only be considered - damming!

It is your POV that Mr Doupagne was not trying to hide anything in his statement where you conveniently have taken his quote out of context. He also said this. Why?

http://doris.sss.free.fr/Picture-8.jpg

I say to you, that your POV is that of a guilty man trying desperately to avoid the facts and exonerate the guilty party!

Oh, I do--just ask my friends!

No, I'm not going to bother providing any further evidence. There's no point. RedDevil will ignore it, as he has consistently ignored everything that doesn't match what he thinks happened. However, Duane, suffice it to say that I find you far more convincing and in possession of the facts.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Why thank you gillianren! [blush]

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Why am I bothering to reply? I guess I am just a sucker for punishment.

My POV (point of view I assume) is that the evidence points to the conclusion that CHAT was not made in Africa. The CHAT vaccine was manufactured in the US for human use from 56-60. The CHAT vaccine was made for the immunization, not "infection (sic)" of the people.

The Stanleyville lab was built sometime before 1956, but it did not have a cell culture lab until after Feb 58, when Dr Osterrieth returned from the US. Upon arrival he attempted to equip a lab with the equipment necessary to cultivate animal cultures, which was not done until after Mar 58, at the very earliest. He states that he was never very successful in cultivating any cultures at any time due to the very primitive working conditions and equipment at the Stanleyville lab.

Annual reports from the Stanleyville lab confirms that in 58 and 59 some limited cultures were done, from baboons only in 58 and baby mice only in 59. As Dr Osterrieth said, he had trouble cultivating any tissue at this lab due to the primitive conditions and equipment he had at his disposal.

It was a "State of the Art" laboratory for the Belgion Congo region, within which there was no cell culture lab. The cell culture lab was added later once the lead scientist (Dr Osterrieth) was available to outline the equipment needed to set up such a lab. He did this after learning how to set up such a lab at a course he attended in the US from Oct 57 to Jan 58.

Laughable. No where do the nurses say that they removed kidney "alone for the production of the CHAT vaccine", and your suggestion that they do is a gross exaggeration. They said they removed the kidneys which they think were then sent somewhere else. They never saw it being sent, they did not witness any packages which had any tissue being sent anywhere. DID YOU READ OR LISTEN TO WHAT THEY SAID?? Even Joseph Limbaya, when asked directly if there was any proof that vaccine was made, said only:

So, in other words, a labourer at the Lindi camp, discussing work he was doing 40 years ago, describes Dr Osterrieth preparing what he thinks was vaccine in a sterile vessel some 2 feet in diameter.

The video from the period of the vaccinations shows the oral vaccine being distributed from vessels that look very similar to that discription. However, Dr Osterrieth states in a sworn statement:

So it all fits neatly togeather. The vaccine, having been manufactured in the US then sent to the Belgion Congo to be added to the sterile containers was seen by this worker being added to the containers. He did not see any manufacturing process, he did not see, well, anything except Dr Osterrieth had vessels for distributing vaccine.


Hogwash! As you have obviously not read any of the links I have provided, including exerpts from a letter written by Dr Niname. I will repeat what he, himself wrote before he died:

Even Hooper admits in the program that Dr Niname made it very clear he was misunderstood in his explanation and that his use of the word "chimpanzee" was an error on his part, as he meant "monkey". Furthermore he was not discussing cultivating tissue in Stanleyville, he was taking about tissue culture being grown by Wistar as a corporation.

I repeat: the evidence (the real, empirical stuff you like to ignore) supports Dr Kaprowski, Dr Plotkin, Dr Osterrieth, Dr Cohen, Paulett Dherte, etc's view that chimpanzee culture was not being produced at the Stanleyvile lab during the critical period claimed by Mr Hooper, nor, in fact, at any other time.


I take his quote out of context? How did I do that, pray tell, when I quoted his entire statement exactly as he stated it? Do you know what "context" means?

Uh, yea, ok, whatever.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Since your so diligently inclined to fully answer all allegations, Im sure your critical analysis of this report will make an interesting and insightful read for our onlookers and your supporters not least.

Don't forget to cross the t's.

http://www.aidsorigins.com/pdfs/lincei/hooper03.pdf

I'm not a moderator, but I'd suggest watching that attitude...

What attitude are you alluding to? I see no evidence to support your erroneous claim..

Lets see...in your last few posts, you've characterized another poster on this board as being a liar and being intellectually dishonest...and you have done this without evidence to support those "characterizations". I would call that "having an attitude".

The "evidence" is your posting history...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Cl1mh4224rd
was not refering to this in his 'erroneous claim'.

He cited
In here there is no attuide.

You have made reference to this:

Again clearly no evidence of 'characterized another poster on this board as being a liar and being intellectually dishonest...' but rather instead pointing out where one has dismissed evidence that is undeniable. So much so that it can only be considered a blatent attempt of ignoring the facts.

I resent your implications and see this only as further red herrings, the prefered method to side line the real debate and evidence provided.

To restate, the debate is currently focusing on this evidence:

http://www.aidsorigins.com/pdfs/lincei/hooper03.pdf

Now, don't play dumb. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Nose-in-the-air remarks such as "Don't forget to cross the t's" do nothing for your argument.

Hmm...
Care to explain how calling someone guilty is not characterizing "another poster on this board as being a liar and being intellectually dishonest"?

read it again. It says that 'YOUR POV', suggesting that this POV is that similar to a guilty party.

Unless you have something concreate please resist from cluttering this debate further.

This is one revealing paragraph from that report, in which there are MANY more.

What is most telling about that quote is that he states they said it, but not who they are.

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

... which inherently implies that the person making the statement is a guilty party.

If that was not your intention, retracting the comment would have sufficed. You seem intent on trying to shore up this thinly-veiled insult, instead. The cluttering comes from yourself. Cl1mh4224rd is simply asking you to plainly state either that the statement was poorly worded, or that you did intend to be insulting. One way or the other, you can resolve the matter easily.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

Duane is capable of speaking for himself. He is also a moderator. Cl1mh4224rd is not a moderator, Nor was he the victim of my so-called 'attitude'. What is clear is that others (You), not Duane or I, are 'intent on trying to shore up this thinly-veiled insult' in a futile attempt to clutter this debate. As is often the case when red herrings are needed to be injected into the argument for lack of real substance.

Yet one thing I can be certain of is that you will continue to clutter this debate as your collective arguments against the OPV AIDS so-called hypothesis have been a consistently dismissal attempt to disprove this allegation. From claiming that this is was a casual theory, to saying that it was not possible because AIDS first appeared in 59 and HIV takes 10 years to manifest (which was proved false), to saying that chimps were not used, (clearly proven wrong) to saying that the statement of Ninane that were later retracted were lies! Clearly they were recorded and the only one claiming that Gaston Ninane statement were lies were Kaprowski who made Ninane sign a prepaired statement while in hospital before his death refuting his own words!

To end this nonsense I retract any attitude I have shown towards Duane. I think Duane is actually wrong, however, in his favor he is certainly the only one on this board that has anything worthy to put up as an argument against the OPV AIDS hypothesis. Thats for sure!

If you refute the substance of the claim that it was a quick operation to knock up a new batch

Then I would welcome your evidence. Note for the record I do not welcome your innuendo! As clearly you are not dealing with the substance but are instead trying to imply a fact is wrong because it is not made clear in that paragraph what the name of the eminent virologists are.

I'd point out that it's not up to anyone to prove that it wasn't done. It's up to you to prove that it was. Your quote merely says that it could have been done, but it doesn't actually show that it was.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

This is rather telling is it not?

I am not implying that a "fact" is wrong. I am stating that it is not a fact unless it is backed up with substance. It is in truth merely innuendo on it's face, as there is no way to verify it is fact!

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

If this is your best argument then I will not continue to be drawn into yet another side issue or red herring (RH). I provided that statment, now its your turn to counter it. Not to play little games on 'oh my, its not a fact, because you can see, it has been quoted without the acribed name.

Prove this wrong, and only by doing this will your argument garner some advancement.

It is not my place to prove you wrong, you ultimately have burden of proof, so you need to back up that what you attribute is fact. You cannot shift this burden as it is you that made the original postulation (through attibution to the link).

So please show that what is stated is true or withdraw the statement.

Edit: If there is any doubt on who needs to back up statements, here is a link on what burden of proof is (provided by N C More)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage