Full Version: Was AIDS man-made?
I know most people likely subscribe to the theory that HIV was the result of a virus jumping species from a chimp (though it was originally an african green monkey) into humans in africa. I want to challenge that theory with another.
I realize people may think it nothing more then paranoid thinking and I hope they're right, but what if aids was the result of a virus cooked up in a lab at fort detrick MD?
not being one to make unsubstantiated claims I would like to present the following as evidence in support of this theory:
the secret origins of AIDS; by Dr. Alan Cantwell, MD
[url=http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/46a.htm] AIDS: A Doctor’s Note on the Man-Made Theory
By ALAN CANTWELL, J.R, M.D.[/url]
was aids man made
[url=http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/6.Strecker%20Memo.html] Is AIDS Man Made?
The Strecker Memorandum[/url]
The Strecker Memorandum video (1hr 37min)
now, I realize many sources doesn't prove anything, but I ask that you take a look at the evidence, keeping in mind that the US government has been known to experiment on the american people since at least the early 30s (tuskegee syphilis experiment) and try to keep an open mind.
questions for debate:
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of aids
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
I realize people may think it nothing more then paranoid thinking and I hope they're right, but what if aids was the result of a virus cooked up in a lab at fort detrick MD?
not being one to make unsubstantiated claims I would like to present the following as evidence in support of this theory:
the secret origins of AIDS; by Dr. Alan Cantwell, MD
[url=http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/46a.htm] AIDS: A Doctor’s Note on the Man-Made Theory
By ALAN CANTWELL, J.R, M.D.[/url]
was aids man made
[url=http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/Aids/6.Strecker%20Memo.html] Is AIDS Man Made?
The Strecker Memorandum[/url]
The Strecker Memorandum video (1hr 37min)
now, I realize many sources doesn't prove anything, but I ask that you take a look at the evidence, keeping in mind that the US government has been known to experiment on the american people since at least the early 30s (tuskegee syphilis experiment) and try to keep an open mind.
questions for debate:
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of aids
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
questions for debate:
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of aids
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
"Possible" is a very dangerous word.
"Isn't it possible that you were mistaken when you say that you saw Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with a lead pipe?"
"Well, I suppose it's possible . . ."
"Your honor, I ask that the case be dismissed!"
My point is that "possible" includes "so extraordinarily unlikely that it need not be seriously considered." It's possible that I might find a million dollars on the street and be struck by lightning on the same day, but it's not very likely.
Let's look at Dr. Cantwell's hypothesis. He proposes that:
Source
Wikipedia is dismissive of this proposal.
Well, that's just Wikipedia. But there's something funny about the timeline for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
So, you have to suppose that these cases have all been misdiagnosed. (The tissues of the British sailor were contaminated during testing, so it is not 100% certain that he was infected with HIV.)
Overall, it simply seems to me much more likely that AIDS is just a particularly horrible disease of natural origin.
I have to admit that I am prejudiced against the hypothesis of Dr. Cantwell, for several circumstancial reasons. His books are self-published. (Maybe the mainstream scientific community is suppressing them.) Articles about Dr. Cantwell seem to pop up a lot on websites that claim that micro-organisms cannot cause disease; or, paradoxically, on websites that claim that all forms of cancer are caused by a micro-organism. They also tend to appear on websites that reject mainstream medicine for alternative treatments. None of this is conclusive -- the old "guilt by association" fallacy -- but it makes me suspicious.
In general, a conspiracy at this level -- a plot to exterminate Africans and/or gay men -- requires an extraordinary level of extreme secrecy by many, many people. I just don't think that large numbers of people can keep anything of that magnitude a secret for any length of time. Consider the fact that the Nazi extermination camps were run by one of the most brutally authoritarian regimes in history, and that they failed to keep them a secret (or even made any real effort to do so, given the vast documentation they themselves made of their own atrocities.)
Conspiracy theories, in my opinion, are almost always wrong. Evils are more likely to come about from bad luck; the open malice of a small number of human beings; or stupidity.
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of aids
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
"Possible" is a very dangerous word.
"Isn't it possible that you were mistaken when you say that you saw Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with a lead pipe?"
"Well, I suppose it's possible . . ."
"Your honor, I ask that the case be dismissed!"
My point is that "possible" includes "so extraordinarily unlikely that it need not be seriously considered." It's possible that I might find a million dollars on the street and be struck by lightning on the same day, but it's not very likely.
Let's look at Dr. Cantwell's hypothesis. He proposes that:
QUOTE
. . .HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists; that it was introduced into the population through Hepatitis B experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978-1981 in Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, St. Louis, Denver, and Chicago. Cantwell claims these experiments were directed by Dr. Wolf Szmuness; and that there is an ongoing government and media cover-up regarding the origin of the AIDS epidemic.
Source
Wikipedia is dismissive of this proposal.
QUOTE
The conspiracy theory holds that Szmuness was responsible in some way for infecting gay men in New York City with HIV, although the presence of HIV in his lab, the presence of a "Patient Zero," or a mechanism for this introduction have not been given. There is no evidence that the conspiracy theories are true.
Well, that's just Wikipedia. But there's something funny about the timeline for this.
QUOTE
One of the earliest documented HIV-1 infection dates from 1959, and was discovered in the preserved blood sample of a man from Leopoldville, Belgian Congo . . .
The oldest documented case of the then-unknown syndrome was detected that same year, when a 25-year-old British sailor who had traveled in the navy between 1955 and 1957 (but apparently not to Africa), sought help at the Royal Infirmary of Manchester, England. He reported to have been suffering from puzzling symptoms, among them purplish skin lesions, for nearly two years. His condition had taken a turn for worse during Christmas 1958, when he started suffering from shortness of breath, extreme fatigue, rapid weight loss, night sweats and high fever. The doctors thought he might be suffering from tuberculosis and, even though they found no evidence of bacterial infection, they treated him for tuberculosis just to be safe, to no avail. The sailor continued to weaken and he died shortly after in August 1959. His autopsy revealed evidence of two unusual infections, cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP, later, when redetermined as P. jirovecii, renamed Pneumocystis pneumonia), very rare at the time but now commonly associated with AIDS patients.
. . .
Another early case was probably detected that same year, 1959, in a 48-year-old Haitian, who 30 years before had immigrated to the United States and at the time was working as a shipping clerk for a garment manufacturer in Manhattan. He developed similar symptoms to those just described for the British sailor, and died the same year, apparently of the same very rare kind of pneumonia.
. . .
In 1969, a 15-year-old African-American male died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, and in 1987, researchers at Tulane University School of Medicine confirmed this, finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues.
The oldest documented case of the then-unknown syndrome was detected that same year, when a 25-year-old British sailor who had traveled in the navy between 1955 and 1957 (but apparently not to Africa), sought help at the Royal Infirmary of Manchester, England. He reported to have been suffering from puzzling symptoms, among them purplish skin lesions, for nearly two years. His condition had taken a turn for worse during Christmas 1958, when he started suffering from shortness of breath, extreme fatigue, rapid weight loss, night sweats and high fever. The doctors thought he might be suffering from tuberculosis and, even though they found no evidence of bacterial infection, they treated him for tuberculosis just to be safe, to no avail. The sailor continued to weaken and he died shortly after in August 1959. His autopsy revealed evidence of two unusual infections, cytomegalovirus and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP, later, when redetermined as P. jirovecii, renamed Pneumocystis pneumonia), very rare at the time but now commonly associated with AIDS patients.
. . .
Another early case was probably detected that same year, 1959, in a 48-year-old Haitian, who 30 years before had immigrated to the United States and at the time was working as a shipping clerk for a garment manufacturer in Manhattan. He developed similar symptoms to those just described for the British sailor, and died the same year, apparently of the same very rare kind of pneumonia.
. . .
In 1969, a 15-year-old African-American male died at the St. Louis City Hospital from aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. AIDS was suspected as early as 1984, and in 1987, researchers at Tulane University School of Medicine confirmed this, finding HIV-1 in his preserved blood and tissues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
So, you have to suppose that these cases have all been misdiagnosed. (The tissues of the British sailor were contaminated during testing, so it is not 100% certain that he was infected with HIV.)
Overall, it simply seems to me much more likely that AIDS is just a particularly horrible disease of natural origin.
I have to admit that I am prejudiced against the hypothesis of Dr. Cantwell, for several circumstancial reasons. His books are self-published. (Maybe the mainstream scientific community is suppressing them.) Articles about Dr. Cantwell seem to pop up a lot on websites that claim that micro-organisms cannot cause disease; or, paradoxically, on websites that claim that all forms of cancer are caused by a micro-organism. They also tend to appear on websites that reject mainstream medicine for alternative treatments. None of this is conclusive -- the old "guilt by association" fallacy -- but it makes me suspicious.
In general, a conspiracy at this level -- a plot to exterminate Africans and/or gay men -- requires an extraordinary level of extreme secrecy by many, many people. I just don't think that large numbers of people can keep anything of that magnitude a secret for any length of time. Consider the fact that the Nazi extermination camps were run by one of the most brutally authoritarian regimes in history, and that they failed to keep them a secret (or even made any real effort to do so, given the vast documentation they themselves made of their own atrocities.)
Conspiracy theories, in my opinion, are almost always wrong. Evils are more likely to come about from bad luck; the open malice of a small number of human beings; or stupidity.
perhaps possible was the wrong word. it is too broad. how about probable.
I personally am in the camp it was created in a lab and spread through tainting vaccines. nI don't think they were targeting any one group. I see it more as a toll for depopulating the world. one must admit, for killing people and making them fearful of sex for fear of death I could think of no better tool then HIV.
I would suggest watching the video I linked to for a thorough explanation
the "illuminati", NWO, power elite, or whatever you want to call it, are known for voicing that the population needs to be at 500,000 or so.
and victoria, I hope to god that you're the one who is right and there is not NWO conspiracy and I'm simply paranoid.
I personally am in the camp it was created in a lab and spread through tainting vaccines. nI don't think they were targeting any one group. I see it more as a toll for depopulating the world. one must admit, for killing people and making them fearful of sex for fear of death I could think of no better tool then HIV.
I would suggest watching the video I linked to for a thorough explanation
the "illuminati", NWO, power elite, or whatever you want to call it, are known for voicing that the population needs to be at 500,000 or so.
and victoria, I hope to god that you're the one who is right and there is not NWO conspiracy and I'm simply paranoid.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Apr 21 2007, 11:28 AM) 
I personally am in the camp it was created in a lab and spread through tainting vaccines. nI don't think they were targeting any one group. I see it more as a toll for depopulating the world. one must admit, for killing people and making them fearful of sex for fear of death I could think of no better tool then HIV.
....
So the Government of the United States is responsible for mass murder on a scale unknown since Stalin walked the earth?
Firstly, I'm sorry, but that is insane. AIDS is a natural disease, a result of the HIV virus (unless you also believe ANOTHER insane conspiracy theory). It is almost identical to SIV, a strain long known to exist in monkeys.
The conspiracy doesn't even pass the laugh test. Firstly, all these nutjob theories come from the fact that people have no knowledge of basic history, and because this is the first new disease to come along in our generation. Thus, they presume it is unique, when in fact new diseases spring up all the time, and the most COMMON reason they spring up is mutated forms of diseases in animals humans associate with. Anthrax, Small Pox, Typhoid, malaria, even the bubonic Plague are all mutated animal diseases passed on to humans.
Secondly, if this WAS a plan to reduce the human population, then the conspiracy theorists were complete idiots. To effect a reduction in population you need a virulent but short lived virus which can affect areas but not linger. AIDS has been around (in significant infection numbers) for 30 years. In that time the world population has gone from 3.9 to 6.6 BILLION people.
AIDS is easily detectible, easily avoidable (coondoms) and has in no way reduced sexuality in modern society: or do you think society hs become LESS sexualised since 1975?
If the government REALLY wanted to lower world population, they spike the water supply of major cities with estrogen, lowering fertility across the board. There you go 'Unabomber', your new conspiracy theory ready made.
Oh, by the way: man DID land on the moon, Bush was NOT behind 9/11, the US did NOT have prior knowledge of Pearl harbour and Elvis is still dead.
Let's examine two paragraphs in your first link; I think they are crucial to this topic, because he rests the rest of his case on this leap of logic.
OK, did you catch the leap? Victoria already pointed out earlier cases, but let me add that the state of medicine, and particularly epidemiology, in Africa is horrendous today - let alone in the late 70s and early 80s. It's entirely possible that thousands of Africans died of AIDS before those Manhattan cases were diagnosed. Indeed, it is probable. Because there has been very little organized epidemiology of diseases in Africa until fairly recently.
I have a hard time believing this guy is even a real MD. I'm only a casual study of medicine, and even I know that there is a huge difference between incidence of a disease and the diagnosing/discovery of a disease. Until a disease is "discovered," everyone who had it before that died of unknown causes. Someone "discovered" the pathology of malaria - but that doesn't mean that that's when all malaria cases began!
But the question is, is it possible AIDS was created? Well, sure, it's possible. Let's say for a moment that it was. I think it would be more likely that its escape into the population was a mistake. You know I have no great love for or trust in governments; however, I don't think AIDS was released (assuming it was manmade) as some sort of eugenic plot by the Illuminati (or whomever). The thing about conspiracies is that they require putting together a bunch of improbable - but possible - bits of data. They can seem convincing because so many little bits are thrown together that it seems like they must be true.
This is not to say that there are no real conspiracies. Of course, there are. But think about the other side of AIDS research. There are thousands of scientists with good credentials who work exclusively on AIDS research; there are thousands more epidemiologists and immunologists who study AIDS as part of their work. If these articles you have presented pointed to a conclusion as obviously as they seem to, wouldn't it stand to reason that many, many more scientists would come to the same conclusions? I mean, why wouldn't they? Are they all in the employ of some cabal of eugenicists?
QUOTE
The epidemic did not begin in Africa. The first AIDS cases were uncovered in Manhattan in 1979. At that time there were no reported African cases. In fact, the AIDS epidemic in Africa did not begin until the autumn of 1982 at the earliest.
How was HIV introduced exclusively into the gay community in the late 1970s? The exclusive introduction of HIV into the homosexual population of New York City is an unprecedented event in the history of medicine. This biologic phenomenon has never been fully explained scientifically. There is certainly no evidence to indicate white gay men were the only people exposed to sexual contact with Africans, particularly at a time when the epidemic did not exist in Africa. Furthermore, it is biologically impossible for a purported sexually-transmitted and blood borne "virus out of Africa" to infect only young, white, healthy men in Manhattan! Yet, the impossible did happen. Despite these facts, we are repeatedly told that AIDS began in Africa, even though the American epidemic began before the African epidemic.
How was HIV introduced exclusively into the gay community in the late 1970s? The exclusive introduction of HIV into the homosexual population of New York City is an unprecedented event in the history of medicine. This biologic phenomenon has never been fully explained scientifically. There is certainly no evidence to indicate white gay men were the only people exposed to sexual contact with Africans, particularly at a time when the epidemic did not exist in Africa. Furthermore, it is biologically impossible for a purported sexually-transmitted and blood borne "virus out of Africa" to infect only young, white, healthy men in Manhattan! Yet, the impossible did happen. Despite these facts, we are repeatedly told that AIDS began in Africa, even though the American epidemic began before the African epidemic.
OK, did you catch the leap? Victoria already pointed out earlier cases, but let me add that the state of medicine, and particularly epidemiology, in Africa is horrendous today - let alone in the late 70s and early 80s. It's entirely possible that thousands of Africans died of AIDS before those Manhattan cases were diagnosed. Indeed, it is probable. Because there has been very little organized epidemiology of diseases in Africa until fairly recently.
I have a hard time believing this guy is even a real MD. I'm only a casual study of medicine, and even I know that there is a huge difference between incidence of a disease and the diagnosing/discovery of a disease. Until a disease is "discovered," everyone who had it before that died of unknown causes. Someone "discovered" the pathology of malaria - but that doesn't mean that that's when all malaria cases began!
But the question is, is it possible AIDS was created? Well, sure, it's possible. Let's say for a moment that it was. I think it would be more likely that its escape into the population was a mistake. You know I have no great love for or trust in governments; however, I don't think AIDS was released (assuming it was manmade) as some sort of eugenic plot by the Illuminati (or whomever). The thing about conspiracies is that they require putting together a bunch of improbable - but possible - bits of data. They can seem convincing because so many little bits are thrown together that it seems like they must be true.
This is not to say that there are no real conspiracies. Of course, there are. But think about the other side of AIDS research. There are thousands of scientists with good credentials who work exclusively on AIDS research; there are thousands more epidemiologists and immunologists who study AIDS as part of their work. If these articles you have presented pointed to a conclusion as obviously as they seem to, wouldn't it stand to reason that many, many more scientists would come to the same conclusions? I mean, why wouldn't they? Are they all in the employ of some cabal of eugenicists?
questions for debate:
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of AIDS
It is possible, albeit highly, nay, very, very highly improbable that our "elements of our government" had anything to do with the creation of AIDS. It is a certainty that they, through innocent ignorance and willfully misplaced priorities have had some hand in the spread.
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
Regarding the spread, first is the ignorance. The concentration of the disease first in the homosexual community kept the awareness of it lower than if it had shown up in a more mainstream community. Throw in the lack of knowledge about the disease and voila, innocent ignorance. The willfully misplaced priorities are an artifact of our political system, and not of any malevolence on the part of the government. AIDS is the most highly politicized disease of our time, and as a result normal public health measures were not pursued.
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
They could not "create" AIDS because the technology to do so did not exist when it first appeared, nor even when it "first appeared" according to your timeline. They could not because doing so would take a far greater level of resources and oversight than a few crackpot, er, mad scientist types could pull off under gov't auspices. And finally, they would not because to do so would require too many normal folks to convert into covert sociopaths.
But hey, I've got to thank you for proving that there are ideologies so whacked out that even Vermillion and I can come to agreement in opposition!
Occam's Razor, strop it and don't forget the aftershave.
1) is it at least possible that elements of our government had something to do with the creation and spread of AIDS
It is possible, albeit highly, nay, very, very highly improbable that our "elements of our government" had anything to do with the creation of AIDS. It is a certainty that they, through innocent ignorance and willfully misplaced priorities have had some hand in the spread.
1a)if yes: why do you think they would do so
Regarding the spread, first is the ignorance. The concentration of the disease first in the homosexual community kept the awareness of it lower than if it had shown up in a more mainstream community. Throw in the lack of knowledge about the disease and voila, innocent ignorance. The willfully misplaced priorities are an artifact of our political system, and not of any malevolence on the part of the government. AIDS is the most highly politicized disease of our time, and as a result normal public health measures were not pursued.
1b)if no: why do you think they would/could not
They could not "create" AIDS because the technology to do so did not exist when it first appeared, nor even when it "first appeared" according to your timeline. They could not because doing so would take a far greater level of resources and oversight than a few crackpot, er, mad scientist types could pull off under gov't auspices. And finally, they would not because to do so would require too many normal folks to convert into covert sociopaths.
But hey, I've got to thank you for proving that there are ideologies so whacked out that even Vermillion and I can come to agreement in opposition!
Occam's Razor, strop it and don't forget the aftershave.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Apr 23 2007, 02:39 PM)
But hey, I've got to thank you for proving that there are ideologies so whacked out that even Vermillion and I can come to agreement in opposition!
Occam's Razor, strop it and don't forget the aftershave.
That makes three of us. I typed the same thing that Vermillion did almost word for word when I originally read this post, but I didn't want to post it for fear of being argumentative:
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Oh, by the way: man DID land on the moon, Bush was NOT behind 9/11, the US did NOT have prior knowledge of Pearl harbour and Elvis is still dead.
If you believe that "the government," and by extension thousands or millions of your fellow citizens, are out to get you, contaminating vaccines or spreading disease through "chemtrails" or what-not.... then yes, you are paranoid. And you probably need some help.
I say this out of love and concern, not to be snarky. You need to either learn how to think critically, or you have a chemical imbalance. I wish you luck.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.