This just came up in another forum I frequent. The following link was given: The History of the Development of AIDS (Chapter Excerpt from “State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS”).

I "know" this is bunk, but I was wondering if anyone knows of any good debunkings of this claim that I could post in response.

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

The best argument is that HIV is a very poor candidate for a biological warfare agent. It takes ten years to kill you, is reasonably difficult to transmit, cannot be contained, and cannot (so far as is known) be neutralized for the protection of friendly troops.

You want a weapon to act quickly. An agent that takes years to achieve its effect has no use as a weapon.

In comparison with other agents, HIV transmits very poorly. You need to have blood-to-blood contact, which is relatively difficult to achieve. Weaponizable biological agents need to have much easier vectors: aspiration, skin contact, mucous contact, etc.

The effects of any weapon have to be contained. Because HIV/AIDS takes so long to have a drastic effect, it can be spread widely -- perhaps to places its "designers" don't want it to go. If the period between infection and disability or death is short, the effects will be limited geographically.

And although not strictly necessary, you want to develop something that is harmful only to your enemy and not to your own people. So you develop an antidote or treatment regimen in conjunction with the agent. If any of your own people should be infected, you want to be able to cure them.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sorry, Cl1mh4224rd- I know it makes for an interesting post, but according to Tinaa, all non- space/UFO/alien conspiracy theories don't belong here (except for this 38-page thread, and several others).

I expect it will move to BABB soon.

Thanks for that, Jay. Not surprisingly, though, the fellow made this claim:

Yep. They employeed people smart enough to create the virus, but didn't bother to tell them to limit its scope. Oops!

Hmm, yeah. D'oh.

I believe a lot of the CT theories of AIDs were discussed in this thread.

Added: post # 10 in that thread (by me) links to an even earlier discussion

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Hmm, there might be a slightly different view between Tinaa and Fraser, according to this Fraser article.

But, I'm all for what this Tinaa article expressed. There should be some aspect about a conspiracy presented here in this special place to which critical thinking skills can be applied, lest it become an Internet dumping ground for any old topic about two or more people agreeing to do something.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

Hello!
Well the HIV- virus most likely came from the SIV virus that lives in the green monkey (translation?) I think in an area west of the Victoria lake (gotta look this up again, its been 15 years since I held speeches about it at school ).
It got into contact with humans (and then mutated) when natives there cought the monkey and ate it (blood to blood contact during the slaughtering of the monkey through injuries inflicted by the monkey when it tried to escape).
People there had always been dying young and from all kinds of illnesses and the incubation time is rather long so it did not really cause much attention. Also some symptoms are simillar to those of people dying from starvation.
In addition to this the area was comparably isolated so for a long time the virus had little time to spread.
So the theory is that noone really noticed anything for years.
Later development helpers, researchers and workers brought the virus to more populated areas from where it spread to Europe and the US through the well known ways of infection.
CU
Skipjack

http://nexusmagazine.com/articles/mycoplasma.html

Based on this one this is rather a pharmaceutical conspiracy.....

ChaByu -- must stop exposing Illuminati conspiracies. If not, I must inform my employers.

NSA does not like exposure.

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

Ok, this article is totally bogus.
I dont even bother reading through it completely because I dont have enough time to waste with it. Just a few points I noted during reading through it quickly:

1. Watson and Crick discovered how the DNA works in 1953, the articles claims that experiments with DNA were conducted since 1942.

2. HIV is an RNA- virus, not a DNA- virus, so it contains no DNA.

3. DNA does not just enter a cell. A virus does not just contain DNA, it contains a shell that allows it to dock with a cell and transfer the DNA/RNA into the cell.

4. Mad Cow desease is not caused by viruses but by Prions, something very different.

5. All the illnesses listed there are very, very bad means of biological weapons. Biological weapons ideally work quickly so the contaminated area stays somewhat confined.

6. Mycoplasmae are a kind of bacteria. Bacteria dont enter cells...
CU
Skipjack

But if we over look details you list, is good article, no?

__________________
So descredo no incrivel

Beauty I’d always missed
With these eyes before,
Just what the truth is
I can’t say anymore.

-- Moody Blues

Hey Monique!
I am affraid I havent listed everything they got wrong here
I just listed the ones that I noted while quickly overreading a few chapters...
It is enough for me though
CU
Skipjack

IIRC I read a news report that the intelligence apparatus of the old Soviet Union was involved in spreading (and possibly the creation of) the "manufactured AIDS" CT. Unfortunately I can't find a reference with a quick Google, so take my recollection with a pinch of salt. (Anyone else recall this?)

If this story is true, however, would that make this a meta-CT, in that this is a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory?

Not everything that you read in a news report is true, trust me, I know what I say. I had been inderectly affected by wrong news reports myself...
If it was on FOX, or Yahoo, I would not believe it anyway
Further, why would they do that? HIV is not a good way to do biological warfare. In biological warfare you want to use something that works quickly enough to avoid the desease spreading to far. You want to be able to confine the area and you want to have the desease hunger itself out (after there is nothing left to infect) quickly enough so you can get your troops into the are quickly and/or have a vaccine for your troops to have them avoid infection. The fact that there is no cure for HIV or even a vaccine in sight proves that HIV is not suitable for a biological weapon.
CU
Skipjack

Given that the first European victim I have any information on was a Danish doctor, I'm not sure whom the virus was intended to target. (This was in 1977, well before most conspiracists think the first cases existed.)

__________________
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!"

Hey!
Thats interesting information. I only know about the guy that came into Mount Sinai Medical Center in NY in 1982 (I think it was).
That was the first case that was reported to the CDC though, I guess...
Gotta update/refresh my knowledge a bit, its been so long...
CU
Skipjack

Oh? Has an HIV virus ever been isolated/identified?

The identification of the HIV- virus goes to either Robert Gallo or Luc Montagnier, depending on who you ask (Gallo an american MD got the right on it from an american court, Luc Montagnier who works for the Pasteur institute is said to have been first by others though). That was in the mid eighties though, if I remember correctly.
CU
Skipjack

Curiouserand curiouser...
"The trial was based on actions of the defendant which were caused by the misleading statement made by the RKI (Dr. Marcus) on the 9th March 1995, that there were photographs of the isolated HI-virus inside the publications of Montagnier (1983) and Gallo (1984). The judge proved the untruthfulness of this statement using Dr.Marcus' statement itself..."
German Court Rules "HIV Never Isolated"