Do you guys believe the theorists?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 3:17 AM GMT
    First off, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but my sister just got in from Thailand and was telling me all of these things she's been thinking about and reading.

    There is one theory, a very big one, based on the US Special Virus Program, which believes that the HIV virus was initially designed, and released onto the public by a secret group of US officials working to eliminate, silently, a particular group of people. (the man who touts this, Boyd E. Graves J.D., went as far as to attempt to file a lawsuit against the US Government, a lawsuit which was canned without a reason by the District Court).

    Anyways it's something like 5 phases, the first was developing the virus, it's cure, clinical trials (there was a Hepatitis Vaccine given to a bit over 1000 gay men, all of which died of AIDS related diseases, and then the polio vaccine sent to Africa).

    Obviously I doubt the people on this website are liberal enough to believe, let alone read all this. But before anyone goes clamoring "how can a government kill it's people." They already wont let you marry, this was all conspired a short while after the civil rights movement ended, and governments throughout history have never been known to always be in favor of their citizens.

    Also, a second topic within a topic, how many of you have heard of Tetrasil? if not look it up, but if there are any HIV positives on this site or reading this, I'd suggest you look into it, it's got some decent footing with a scientist who communicated heavily with Gallo (the guy who takes much of the claim for labeling the virus)

    anyways, the more I hear about it, the more I look to read, as a gay guy I find the topic would apply better here than anywhere else.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 11:33 AM GMT
    No, I don't. HIV seems to have come from the jungles of Cameroon and it is speculated that it was initially transferred from apes to humans sometime in the 19th or early 20th century likely through the eating of of apes. It is not harmful to apes but is to humans. There is another virus that is very similar that is not harmful to humans but is to apes (the name escapes me now). Supposedly if you are immune to one you can't be to the other one.

    HIV has been around a lot longer than people think. The incubation period for HIV can be up to 8-10 years before one becomes really sick, so those that started dying in 1980 could have been infected in the early 1970s or earlier. The increasng encroachment of humans into the jungles of Africa, jet travel and changing sexual practices in the 1960s and 1970s all helped to ensure there were a large number of infected people by the time AIDS hit in full force in the early 1980s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 11:39 AM GMT
    I read this article and found it to be interesting on this subject.

    http://www.bushmeat.org/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=888&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true

    Basically it says that going into the wild and exposing themselves to the blood of these animals could have been the contact point. I also believe there is an article on MSNBC. The topic is called "bushmeat". Enjoy lol!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 11:46 AM GMT
    Capricorn One was not a documentary.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 10:53 PM GMT
    SurrealLife saidNo, I don't. HIV seems to have come from the jungles of Cameroon and it is speculated that it was initially transferred from apes to humans sometime in the 19th or early 20th century likely through the eating of of apes. It is not harmful to apes but is to humans. There is another virus that is very similar that is not harmful to humans but is to apes (the name escapes me now). Supposedly if you are immune to one you can't be to the other one.

    HIV has been around a lot longer than people think. The incubation period for HIV can be up to 8-10 years before one becomes really sick, so those that started dying in 1980 could have been infected in the early 1970s or earlier. The increasng encroachment of humans into the jungles of Africa, jet travel and changing sexual practices in the 1960s and 1970s all helped to ensure there were a large number of infected people by the time AIDS hit in full force in the early 1980s.


    that's all a possibility, though normally HIV isn't transferred through the digestive system. Regardless, you can have AIDS without HIV, AIDS is simply a condition, not a marker that one has HIV.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jan 05, 2009 10:57 PM GMT
    wootwoot said Regardless, you can have AIDS without HIV, AIDS is simply a condition, not a marker that one has HIV.


    "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a set of symptoms and infections resulting from the damage to the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids

    With all due respect, do you really understand what you are talking about? That is what the first letter of the acronym stands for: "Acquired".
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jan 05, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
    Conspiracy theories are popular among certain types of people. That doesn't make them even remotely true. For someone with any training in biology, it is quite evident that HIV arose from SIV, the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus; not only are the molecular mechanisms extremely similar, but a phylogeny shows the clear branching pattern of how it diversified. Actually, it happened multiple times: HIV-1 is the main form of HIV in the world, and the M, N, and O groups from it appear to be three separate crossovers from chimpanzees. HIV-2 is a less virulent form restricted almost entirely to West Africa, and appears to be a crossover from the Sooty Mangabee, an African monkey commonly kept as a pet in that region. Of course that in and of itself doesn't rule out the possibility of it being human modified, but current coalescent data puts the first case of HIV in humans back in the 1930s. That makes the idea that it was human modification much shakier, as this was decades prior to the discovery of what the genetic material was, let alone the code used or any of the current lab techniques for causing specific molecular changes.

    As to having AIDS without HIV, you're way out there. Do you have any citation to back up that claim? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    The big problem with thinking that viruses or bacteria are intentionally released as biowarfare agents, particularly in any sort of widespread manner, is the lack of control once they're out there. With a chemical or a nuclear attack, you can calibrate the range of effect, and while symptoms may appear years later, they won't appear in people not exposed to the original attack. Biological agents are self-replicating, and thus are nowhere near as easily contained. Anyone trying to develop such a weapon would know this. If the transmission probability is low, it's unlikely people exposed to the agent will become sick in the first place. If it's high, it's extremely likely to result in an epidemic that will spiral out of control.

    There have been plenty of horrible things done in the name of scientific research. The Tuskegee studies and the Stanford Prison Experiment here in the US, the abominations carried out by the Nazis (from which we actually draw a sad amount of current knowledge about things like human pain tolerance), etc. We don't need to invent more, or blame an unfortunate but natural phenomenon on human malice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 05, 2009 11:37 PM GMT
    Don't find that there is any credence, to date, to the conspiracy theory. HIV experts (for instance Anthony Fauci) site the presence of HIV and other viruses present in primate populations, but not harmful to them, as stated above.

    Habitat encroachment may lead to who knows what other dangers to humans (as well as to other species). 100 years ago or so, human populations in African wetlands were immune, basically, to malaria. White settlers were not. The land change and migration force people into cities, etc, and the territory expanded for the mosquitoes. Malaria spread.

  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Jan 05, 2009 11:50 PM GMT
    Just another crazy conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. No different than the silly moon hoax conspiracy or the various 9/11 conspiracies. All nonsense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2009 12:05 AM GMT
    How appropriate. AIDS denier extraordinaire Christine Maggiore has died today. Good fucking riddance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2009 12:13 AM GMT
    MSUBioNerd said

    As to having AIDS without HIV, you're way out there. Do you have any citation to back up that claim? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



    eh no exact citation no. I was scanning through dozens of sites today looking at that tetrasil and the claim that most had against it was something about Tetrasil being used on people with AIDS and not HIV, there are also a few cases in a general search for AIDS who have it and not HIV. . . there are curious conditions everywhere and so I doubt these random cases have any real meaning behind them.

    Regardless, not saying I believe it, but dismissing most wild conspiracy theories leads to a static nation taking in whatever they're told, the reason why I looked into it. I wouldn't necessarily know what to believe given how few and far in between the early cases of AIDS deaths were. Nothings really out of the ordinary, a government plot to thin the gay/african populations is just as out there as people getting it from ingesting apes or poachers causing the rapid spread of it around the world.
  • DiverScience

    Posts: 1426

    Jan 06, 2009 12:23 AM GMT
    As a biochemist working down the hall from a big HIV lab... that's a great theory, but totally totally bogus in every way.

    The real reason it's not believable? Because the science of designing something like HIV is *vastly* beyond us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2009 12:27 AM GMT
    AIDS is the final stage of HIV. In actual fact it is just HIV period. The virus eventually wipes out the CD-4 cells that are used to combat infections.

    Arbitrarily doctors decided years ago that a person received the AIDS designation if their CD-4 count dropped below 200 AND they had one of the opportunistic diseases associated with a weakened immune system. For example pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) or cryptomegalovirus (CMV).

    If that is the case then I actually, temporarily, had AIDS in 1995. My CD-4 count got as low as 168 and I had hepatitis likely caused by CMV.

    Now I am very healthy with a CD-4 count of 720.

    It is impossible to have AIDS and not to have been infected with HIV virus first.

    IF they were not so dangerous these conspiracy theories would be funny. In actual fact HIV is not even close to the deadliest disease to afflict humans. The Spanish flu of 1918-19 killed probably more than 50 million in a matter of a little more than a year. Smallpox wiped out millions over the centuries. And of course the plague (bubonic and pneumonic) likely killed off 1/3rd of Europes population in the 14th century.

    Among current diseases the Ebola virus is particularly nasty. HIV is not easily transmitted and is treatable. Ebola is not as far as I know.
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Jan 06, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    SurrealLife saidAIDS is the final stage of HIV. In actual fact it is just HIV period. The virus eventually wipes out the CD-4 cells that are used to combat infections.

    Arbitrarily doctors decided years ago that a person received the AIDS designation if their CD-4 count dropped below 200 AND they had one of the opportunistic diseases associated with a weakened immune system. For example pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) or cryptomegalovirus (CMV).

    If that is the case then I actually, temporarily, had AIDS in 1995. My CD-4 count got as low as 168 and I had hepatitis likely caused by CMV.

    Now I am very healthy with a CD-4 count of 720.

    It is impossible to have AIDS and not to have been infected with HIV virus first.

    IF they were not so dangerous these conspiracy theories would be funny. In actual fact HIV is not even close to the deadliest disease to afflict humans. The Spanish flu of 1918-19 killed probably more than 50 million in a matter of a little more than a year. Smallpox wiped out millions over the centuries. And of course the plague (bubonic and pneumonic) likely killed off 1/3rd of Europes population in the 14th century.

    Among current diseases the Ebola virus is particularly nasty. HIV is not easily transmitted and is treatable. Ebola is not as far as I know.


    Small pox killed the most people in human history, did it not? Glad we got rid of that one. Go go science! Death to stupid pseudoscientific quackery like tihs!
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jan 06, 2009 12:39 AM GMT
    Even accepting for the sake of argument the rest of what you're saying, it's not a rapid spread around the world. With coalescence dates of the first human crossover occurring back in the 1920s or 1930s, the earliest preserved blood sample testing positive for it coming from 1959, and the disease not be being formally discovered until 1983, there are decades in between its introduction into humanity and its spread around the world.

    Regardless, it's only "just as out there" if you don't know the underlying science. Science isn't a field that rests on the weight of what the official positions of authority figures are; it rests on the weight of evidence. The poacher hypothesis, for instance, is not that a poacher ate a chimpanzee and got the virus through his gastrointestinal tract. It's that a poacher in the process of butchering a chimpanzee infected with HIV either cut himself in the process or splashed infected blood onto an open sore. Blood to blood transmission is the most effective route known for this virus, and it's actually quite reasonable to think that someone butchering a carcass could cause a minor cut on himself in the process. Since the virus causes death very slowly, any infected individual has the opportunity to spread the virus to many other people before succumbing to it. Further, the relatively common practice in subsaharan Africa of multiple simultaneous long-term sexual partners offers the best possible spread of a sexually transmitted infection with a low per-encounter incidence of transmission; I can detail the math for you if you like.

    Thinking outside the box is useful when it leads to a critical examination of assumptions and tests that you might not have performed otherwise. But a governmental conspiracy to create HIV is far more complicated than a spontaneous leap from chimpanzees, as we already know of quite a number of viruses which can leap across species boundaries: influenza being a prime example, which can leap from pigs and/or birds to humans. It fits the phylogenetic data better than a human design model does, and it also doesn't require proposing governmental knowledge about biology decades ahead of anything in the scientific journals of the day. Occam's Razor argues strongly against this sort of conspiracy.
  • MSUBioNerd

    Posts: 1813

    Jan 06, 2009 12:42 AM GMT
    Actually, while smallpox was a big killer that science has essentially eradicated, we suspect malaria has killed more people than any other disease since the existence of humanity. It's a substantially older disease, and most widespread in the geographic regions people have lived for the longest.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jan 06, 2009 12:43 AM GMT
    wootwoot said

    Regardless, not saying I believe it, but dismissing most wild conspiracy theories leads to a static nation taking in whatever they're told, the reason why I looked into it.

    You have it completely backwards here. It is the conspiracists that reject mainstream "theories" by believing what they are told by those who have a vested interest in skewing information.

    In fact, acquired knowledge (through rigorous testing and peer-review) and theories of science are dynamic and ever-changing while conspiracies rely on a dogmatic, narrow-minded view of information.

    Did you take the time to read the wonderful post by MSUBioNerd (omg a cute gay nerd, so hawt!)? Can you refute the many points brought up by him?

    I've posted this before but it again seems relevant:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2009 12:55 AM GMT
    I wouldn't even call any of that nonsense a "theory". All that's nothing more than the same malarkey as "the moon landings were faked".

    I highly doubt anyone would take enough time to develop a virus to try and wipe out gays and brown people via hepatitis vaccines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2009 1:29 AM GMT
    MSUBioNerd saidActually, while smallpox was a big killer that science has essentially eradicated, we suspect malaria has killed more people than any other disease since the existence of humanity. It's a substantially older disease, and most widespread in the geographic regions people have lived for the longest.


    I believe over 1 million a year. Of course it is in the poorer areas of the world, so it does not get the attention it deserves. Wouldn't be surprised if that is what killed one of my great-aunts in Africa in the 1930s. She was a missionary.
  • Delivis

    Posts: 2332

    Jan 06, 2009 10:55 PM GMT
    MSUBioNerd saidActually, while smallpox was a big killer that science has essentially eradicated, we suspect malaria has killed more people than any other disease since the existence of humanity. It's a substantially older disease, and most widespread in the geographic regions people have lived for the longest.


    I see, i see. We haven't quite nipped that one in the bud yet though..icon_sad.gif