Post: #26

(09-21-2011 11:47 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 05:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  Though controversial, and unproven, I will simply ask a few questions. I can asuure you, there will be more questions to come, and, more evidence.The consensus is that the first recorded event of A.I.D.S. in the western world, as opposed to reverse transcriptase activity in cells , (retroviruses to the scientific community) took place in the 1980's . Now, they are enough records to support that in 1959 plasma samples in the congo were showing up with reverse transcriptase activity.

I didn't see those "enough records", but it could be explained. Remember that people do not die from AIDS per se, they typically die from some infection like pneumonia which their body cannot fight off. So it may be that there were some people who died from AIDS, it is just the diagnosis was "pneumonia".

Now the spread of AIDS is mostly fueled by IV drug users (very high transfer rate) and men who have (anal) sex with men (in this case the transfer rate is much lower, but it is compensated by the fact that one gay dude can buttfuck ten other dudes in a night). Both groups were, let's say, not very popular in the society. In the IV group the doctors just said, well, he had so much chemical shit in his body so we have no idea what's happening. And there was - and still is - some stigma against gay men. So I'd speculate their deaths from AIDS rarely received a lot of medical attention, and didn't often trigger the research.

Quote:Question.... How long have the people of Congo hunted for the Macaque monkey? I am assuming this date should be way before 1959. This is where I will start from as opposed to 1999 . You could rebut this by saying it doesn't matter, because from its inception to cellular death, no one knows the life expectancy of a virus.

Wiki says the transmission happened somewhere in early 20th century. Maybe the life expectancy was so low that they didn't really have a chance to develop AIDS (it takes some time before a person can actually infect another person). Then the "normal" infection rates are quite low, and I doubt they have a lot of gays or IV drug users back there.

Wiki also states what is not resolved yet:

"It is not yet explained why only four HIV groups (HIV-1 groups M and O, and HIV-2 groups A and B) spread considerably in human populations, despite bushmeat practices being very widespread in Central and West Africa,[10] and the resulting human SIV infections being common.

It remains also unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans nearly simultaneously, and only in the 20th century, despite very old human exposure to SIV (a recent phylogenetic study demonstrated that SIV is at least tens of thousands of years old)."

O.N.,

I like the way you are dissecting points. This is grounds for a nice healthy debate to determine "Ground Zero" and I hope we can accomplish that.

In terms of the plasma samples of 1959, see ZHU,T et.al (1998,5th February) "an African HIV-1 sequence from 1959 and implications for the origin for the Origin of the epidemic" Nature 391 (6667) I was having trouble posting the link but the site is:www.ncbi.nim.gov/pubmed/9468138. Seems that subtype B and D were more prevalent but it didn't explain how the initial strain came to be which is what has been bugging me. There's also the Norwegian family in that report who seemed to have been infected earlier than 1971 but had similar viral sequence to the plasma sample. I can post more examples of others who were not in the Congo but had HIV like symptoms and died rapidly.

To your second point, in terms of life expectancy, I had looked up the population of the Congo lets say for 1959 .(http://www.urome.be/en/econgchiff.html) Put that roughly around 14m 14,000,000. Non African 156 thousand. This is in a density of roughly 5,47 km. Pretty tight quarters. Also, 22.1 of them were farmers and settlers. Life expectancy for the Congo is around 47 for men , 50 for women. Pretty damn low. The question you posted concerning "it takes some time for a person to become infected", is a burning one. In my opinion it has never really been quantified, since there is wild and varying evidence that the potency of the infection and its rate, affect each person differently. Some die in months, some in years. Let's say we wanted to call this Ground zero , my question is how much of the population in such a dense area should have been wiped out considering the rate of infection now? Think of it this way, if we start with a date of 1959, or even further back,( with no cure, no education, resources, ) in the Congo, we are going to have a serious mathematical problem to contend with simply because we allegedly "know" how many millions are killed today by the virus. Per the life expectancy of a Congolese , you have roughly a generation to work with, but, we have seen how fast the virus have wiped out untold millions in less than a generation. Coupled that with the fact that bush meat wasn't tested by the Congolese for HIV back then, yet ,remains a part of their stable diet today and you have another problem. Drop some seasoning on it and serve it with some garnish, is still quite popular. Now, the population today is roughly 50- 71m , or 18th largest in the world, yet for me the point is the diet has remained stable. THis is what leads me to believe that the poor monkey was/is getting a bad rap. How is it since we understand that Sub-Sahara Africa carries the most deadliest strains , that the original site ( Congo) has not seen an astronomical explosion in deaths within a generation of people who eat the same damn thing day in day out?? Not to diminish the fact, Congo does have a very high HIV prevalence, but , again , it's not like they are eating caviar for breakfast ,lunch ,and dinner today. Even if we factor in heterosexual transmission,which seems to be the most likely mode of transmission in this region, what happened to the monkeys? Did they stop producing SIV in their system? If this is what you eat, then all hell should break loose regardless of who you fuck.

Having said all of that, your last paragraph/statement "it remains unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans simultaneously" is the fucking missile that breaks the theory to shit. This was a powerful thing you wrote there. This is the burning question. THis tells me that perhaps you too don't buy into this "monkey gave me HIV" theory. I could be wrong on what you think and you could clarify that for me.We know its here, we know it kills, but how did it get here? I will post some other info, and believe me its not even conspiracy. These are facts of other people not in the Congo, having the same exact symptoms, same genetic mutations wherein reverse transcriptase is quite evident. Funny thing is, it is right around the same time the epidemic took off. Great start man, appreciate the input.

Post: #27

(09-21-2011 08:53 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  That isn't what the statistic says. It's 5 cases per 10,000 exposures which works out to a 0.05% chance per sex act. That's about a 1 in 2000 chance. Even though your odds of contracting HIV from vaginal sex are low, it's still responsible for the majority of cases each year due to the fact that vaginal sex is more common than other acts that can lead to transmission. Don't think it can't happen.

White men (or black men who are not on the down low) who do not have sex with black women have almost no chance of contracting HIV.

The data is clear:
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Women have it worse. They can get STDs from conduct that doesn't impact men. Sucks for them.

As a straight white man, HIV is simply not a major risk factor.

Post: #28

(09-22-2011 03:00 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 08:53 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  That isn't what the statistic says. It's 5 cases per 10,000 exposures which works out to a 0.05% chance per sex act. That's about a 1 in 2000 chance. Even though your odds of contracting HIV from vaginal sex are low, it's still responsible for the majority of cases each year due to the fact that vaginal sex is more common than other acts that can lead to transmission. Don't think it can't happen.

White men (or black men who are not on the down low) who do not have sex with black women have almost no chance of contracting HIV.

The data is clear:
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Women have it worse. They can get STDs from conduct that doesn't impact men. Sucks for them.

As a straight white man, HIV is simply not a major risk factor.

That doesn't contradict the earlier figures because they already assumed that the partner was infected. Fact is that if you have unprotected vaginal sex once with a girl who's HIV positive, there's probably between a 1 in 500 and 1 in 2000 risk of getting the virus. It's not a very high risk, but if you're a guy who fucks a lot of women and may have had sex with at least one HIV-positive girl, it's not what I would call insignificant. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that an NBA player with the opportunity to raw-dog hundreds of hoes could contract it.

Post: #29

(09-22-2011 08:21 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  There's also the Norwegian family in that report who seemed to have been infected earlier than 1971 but had similar viral sequence to the plasma sample. I can post more examples of others who were not in the Congo but had HIV like symptoms and died rapidly.

So what is your point here? I don't get it, are you trying to say HIV transmission happened early? Later?

Quote:The question you posted concerning "it takes some time for a person to become infected", is a burning one. In my opinion it has never really been quantified, since there is wild and varying evidence that the potency of the infection and its rate, affect each person differently. Some die in months, some in years.

My statement wasn't about being dead, it was about that it takes time (sometime years) after the infection when the virus load in the person's bodily fluids reaches the threshold where the infection would be possible at all. Note that the most prevalent transmission routes nowadays (butt sex and IV drugs) weren't probably as widespread in Africa in 1950s as they're now in West. Probably blood transfusion wasn't either. So it was quite possible that people did get infected before, but had no chance to pass the infection to someone else before they died. Assume a straight, married African male gets infected at some age. The only person who he can pass it to is his wife. His kids may be born infected too, but in this case they won't survive long enough to be able to have sex. The infection chain ends here, and the infection is contained. To become an epidemic it had to be introduced to a community which would catalyst the spread.

Quote:Let's say we wanted to call this Ground zero , my question is how much of the population in such a dense area should have been wiped out considering the rate of infection now?

If the Congo population was like Ancient Rome, with everyone fucking everyone, then it would be a pretty realistic scenario, and they probably would not survive. Same if one could get HIV through more common means like coughing. But within the traditional style population it is self-contained quite easily.

Quote:Even if we factor in heterosexual transmission,which seems to be the most likely mode of transmission in this region, what happened to the monkeys? Did they stop producing SIV in their system?

SIV infections from monkeys to humans are still very common. However SIV is not a problem for a human body. It took several reinfections with a mutation within to get to HIV. And the one who got it was unlucky enough to be able to spread it to just more than his spouse.

Quote:Having said all of that, your last paragraph/statement "it remains unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans simultaneously" is the fucking missile that breaks the theory to shit. This was a powerful thing you wrote there.

This was a quite from Wiki article.

Quote:This is the burning question. THis tells me that perhaps you too don't buy into this "monkey gave me HIV" theory. I could be wrong on what you think and you could clarify that for me.We know its here, we know it kills, but how did it get here?

Honestly I don't care too much about it, so this theory is good enough for me - all alternative theories I've seen so far quite sucked. But I'll listen to yours.

Post: #30

(09-21-2011 07:24 PM)Roosh Wrote:  From what I've read, I infer that to get HIV from vaginal sex you must have an open sore on your dick and she has to be on her period. Or you have to have an open sore and have really rough sex.

Check out this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

If you have vaginal sex with an HIV positive girl 10,000 times, you have a 0.05% chance of getting it. In other words, Magic Johnson is on the down low.

Yeah, there was always something a tiny bit effeminate about Magic.

Though I do wonder how many of the NBA female groupies he probably went back door on were serious needle-infected druggies. Supposedly Magic pounded a whole lot of pussy when on the road.

Post: #31

(09-23-2011 03:12 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-23-2011 02:58 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  [quote='oldnemesis' pid='96418' dateline='1316752198']
[quote='Pusscrook' pid='96055' dateline='1316697693']


Honestly I don't care too much about it, so this theory is good enough for me - all alternative theories I've seen so far quite sucked. But I'll listen to yours.

Old Nem., Not sure why I couldn't get the post to stick earlier.

I was trying to quantify time, with the previous posts, but its cool. I don't have a theory at all, as I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of everything you , I , and everyone else has heard/read. I did find some research quite interesting though. It does , once again, deal with the issue of time/opportunity so at the least it's thought provoking and may not "suck".

From what I understand the first set of gay men with AIDS like symptoms started showing in New York proper in 1979, which is a few years prior to the epidemic first getting noticed in Africa. How this came to be has always been a mystery to the scientific community and had never been explained in terms of cross-atlantic viruses spreading only to a sub group of men in New York from Africa. That's quite an exclusive club for two "African Jumping Species" to set apart form the entire population . Smart shit I guess.

Now, coincidentally, there was an hep-b /herpes-8 (virus that causes Kaposi Sarcoma in gay men) trial in 1970 by Merck and the NIH for 65 weeks. 13, 000 men and 6 chimps were chosen. This seemed important because prior to this apparently, there was no blood in the U.S. that tested positive for HIV or KS that caused "opportunistic ailments" in young gay men. NOw, according to published reports, , when Robert Gallo came out with his test for HIV in the 80's, all these stored blood samples somehow came back to be HIV positive when he tested them. Now, this again is one year before the disease is declared a worldwide epidemic. Perhaps gay men in the U.S. had a higher incident rate of HIV, to include the "original" birthplace of the disease. Still trying to fathom how not only did they get it, but was testing at such a high rate with no contact with "sex tourism" from West Africa.. These were ordinary men , not well traveled, some were homeless according to several reports from the NIH.
Another strange thing, Merck and this same outfit ,NIH) New York Institute of health, had established several chimp labs to develop viral vaccines in West Africa, and is well documented. Check out the "Vlabs of West Africa". Oddly enough it was to develop a hep-b/ks virus vaccine in chimps, which was the same virus gay men were suffering from in New York. Furthermore this same Merck and the NIH had previously developed the virus cancer program in 1968 which attempted to show viruses cause cancer in humans. THis program was specifically designed to show that hep.b and herp-8, could cause the "new" ks virus which leads to "opportunistic ailments, (to me and and you , a deficiency in the immune system).

Luc Montagnier(who some say really discovered the HIV virus,),was searching for reverse transcriptase activity from the same plasma samples form the gay men from New York, and his (not a conspiracy theory) story, is that he found traces of what we now know as HIV in all of the samples. THis is important because prior to the epidemic,there were no blood samples with HEP.B/KS virus combination or HIV in the U.S. The only record of that combination that was stored was from the gay men.

Another little nugget in terms of time, there is a J.A.M.A. report from 1986 that shows that in 1981 20% of the men were infected, but by 1984, 40% became infected. These are the same men who participated in the trial. There is also another study done on gay dutch men in Holland for HEP.B/Ks in 1980 in which five were infected by what was called"opportunistic ailments" for which they later died.

Now this KS virus is rather unique. THe virus had been documented as far back as 1872 and was never considered part of any "opportunistic" or communicable disease. How it was showing up in hoards of gay men in New York(just to name one U.S. city) and in clinical participants of the Cancer Virus Program previously, has never been answered. Even more interesting is that this "new KS virus" is very closely related to a monkey virus known as Herpes virus Saimiri. Though related to other cancers such as lymphoma , this virus was showing in gay patients 3-4 times more. I think it has been well established that HIV is a cancer causing virus that ends with "opportunistic" ailments that cause cellular death.Even more so, this KS virus is ten fold in gay men who have died than the general population suffering from any other form of cancer caused by HIV. I even went a bit further to look up t-lymphotropic viruses that may have similarities to Simian viruses yet are only present in humans. Interestingly enough ,Merck, and the NIH had been researching and developing vaccines for the same retrovirus prototypes, (known as I,II,III,IV) in 1979. These names are no longer in use when referring to HIV. However, the pioneers of this research in Africa during the same time the trials were going on is Merck and the NIH. Just a coincidence , I guess.Here's a quote from "wiki"...These viruses were discovered in rural Cameroon in 2005, and were , it is presumed, transmitted from monkeys to hunters of monkeys, through bites and scratches". Strange they would say that these viruses were discovered in 2005 in Cameroon and was transmitted to humans when they were already being studied ,30 something years ago.

Post: #32

(09-22-2011 11:29 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-22-2011 08:21 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  There's also the Norwegian family in that report who seemed to have been infected earlier than 1971 but had similar viral sequence to the plasma sample. I can post more examples of others who were not in the Congo but had HIV like symptoms and died rapidly.

So what is your point here? I don't get it, are you trying to say HIV transmission happened early? Later?

Quote:The question you posted concerning "it takes some time for a person to become infected", is a burning one. In my opinion it has never really been quantified, since there is wild and varying evidence that the potency of the infection and its rate, affect each person differently. Some die in months, some in years.

My statement wasn't about being dead, it was about that it takes time (sometime years) after the infection when the virus load in the person's bodily fluids reaches the threshold where the infection would be possible at all. Note that the most prevalent transmission routes nowadays (butt sex and IV drugs) weren't probably as widespread in Africa in 1950s as they're now in West. Probably blood transfusion wasn't either. So it was quite possible that people did get infected before, but had no chance to pass the infection to someone else before they died. Assume a straight, married African male gets infected at some age. The only person who he can pass it to is his wife. His kids may be born infected too, but in this case they won't survive long enough to be able to have sex. The infection chain ends here, and the infection is contained. To become an epidemic it had to be introduced to a community which would catalyst the spread.

Quote:Let's say we wanted to call this Ground zero , my question is how much of the population in such a dense area should have been wiped out considering the rate of infection now?

If the Congo population was like Ancient Rome, with everyone fucking everyone, then it would be a pretty realistic scenario, and they probably would not survive. Same if one could get HIV through more common means like coughing. But within the traditional style population it is self-contained quite easily.

Quote:Even if we factor in heterosexual transmission,which seems to be the most likely mode of transmission in this region, what happened to the monkeys? Did they stop producing SIV in their system?

SIV infections from monkeys to humans are still very common. However SIV is not a problem for a human body. It took several reinfections with a mutation within to get to HIV. And the one who got it was unlucky enough to be able to spread it to just more than his spouse.

Quote:Having said all of that, your last paragraph/statement "it remains unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans simultaneously" is the fucking missile that breaks the theory to shit. This was a powerful thing you wrote there.

This was a quite from Wiki article.

Quote:This is the burning question. THis tells me that perhaps you too don't buy into this "monkey gave me HIV" theory. I could be wrong on what you think and you could clarify that for me.We know its here, we know it kills, but how did it get here?

Honestly I don't care too much about it, so this theory is good enough for me - all alternative theories I've seen so far quite sucked. But I'll listen to yours.

I've tried on numerous occasions to post something to you, but nothing appears.

Post: #33

(09-23-2011 06:21 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(09-22-2011 11:29 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-22-2011 08:21 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  There's also the Norwegian family in that report who seemed to have been infected earlier than 1971 but had similar viral sequence to the plasma sample. I can post more examples of others who were not in the Congo but had HIV like symptoms and died rapidly.

So what is your point here? I don't get it, are you trying to say HIV transmission happened early? Later?

Quote:The question you posted concerning "it takes some time for a person to become infected", is a burning one. In my opinion it has never really been quantified, since there is wild and varying evidence that the potency of the infection and its rate, affect each person differently. Some die in months, some in years.

My statement wasn't about being dead, it was about that it takes time (sometime years) after the infection when the virus load in the person's bodily fluids reaches the threshold where the infection would be possible at all. Note that the most prevalent transmission routes nowadays (butt sex and IV drugs) weren't probably as widespread in Africa in 1950s as they're now in West. Probably blood transfusion wasn't either. So it was quite possible that people did get infected before, but had no chance to pass the infection to someone else before they died. Assume a straight, married African male gets infected at some age. The only person who he can pass it to is his wife. His kids may be born infected too, but in this case they won't survive long enough to be able to have sex. The infection chain ends here, and the infection is contained. To become an epidemic it had to be introduced to a community which would catalyst the spread.

Quote:Let's say we wanted to call this Ground zero , my question is how much of the population in such a dense area should have been wiped out considering the rate of infection now?

If the Congo population was like Ancient Rome, with everyone fucking everyone, then it would be a pretty realistic scenario, and they probably would not survive. Same if one could get HIV through more common means like coughing. But within the traditional style population it is self-contained quite easily.

Quote:Even if we factor in heterosexual transmission,which seems to be the most likely mode of transmission in this region, what happened to the monkeys? Did they stop producing SIV in their system?

SIV infections from monkeys to humans are still very common. However SIV is not a problem for a human body. It took several reinfections with a mutation within to get to HIV. And the one who got it was unlucky enough to be able to spread it to just more than his spouse.

Quote:Having said all of that, your last paragraph/statement "it remains unexplained why all epidemic HIV groups emerged in humans simultaneously" is the fucking missile that breaks the theory to shit. This was a powerful thing you wrote there.

This was a quite from Wiki article.

Quote:This is the burning question. THis tells me that perhaps you too don't buy into this "monkey gave me HIV" theory. I could be wrong on what you think and you could clarify that for me.We know its here, we know it kills, but how did it get here?

Honestly I don't care too much about it, so this theory is good enough for me - all alternative theories I've seen so far quite sucked. But I'll listen to yours.

I've tried on numerous occasions to post something to you, but nothing appears.

I was trying to quantify time with the previous posts but its cool. I don't have a theory at all , as I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of everything you, I , and everyone else has heard/read.

I did find some research quite interesting though. It does , once again, deal with time/opportunity so at the least its thought provoking and may not suck.

From what I understand the first set of gay men with AIDS like symptoms started showing up in New York in 1979, which is a few years prior to the "epidemic" first getting coined as such in Africa. THis has nothing to do with gay men being the cause of HIV , but rather serving as a conduit.

How this came to be has always been a mystery to me and has never been explained in terms of cross-atlantic viruses spreading only to a sub group of men in New York from Africa. That's quite an exclusive club for two "African Jumping Species" to set apart from the entire population. Smart shit I guess.

NOw, Coincidentally, there was an HEP-B/HERPES-8 (virus that causes kaposi Sarcoma in gay men) trial in 1970 by Merck and the NIH for 65 weeks. 13,000 men and 6 chimps were chosen. This seemed important because prior to this , apparently, there was no blood in the U.S. that tested positive for HIV or KS that caused "opportunistic ailments" in gay men. Now, according to published reports, when Robert Gallo came out with his test for HIV in the 80'S, all these stored blood samples somehow came back to be HIV positive when he tested them in the 80's. That's a quote from him in is book. This is about one year or so before the disease even was declared a worldwide epidemic. Two things had jumped out at me .
1. No one explained how the gay men somehow got this virus which originally came from Cameroon/COngo via monkeys. The study shows these men who signed up for the clinical trials,(SEE NIH report) were not well traveled sex tourist that were going to Africa in such alarming numbers, but regular men, some of whom were homeless. Why weren't other samples used from across the globe? THey were other men suffering from the same exact symptoms.
2. WHy were they having such a higher incident rate that those in the birthplace of the said virus?

Shifting gears a little, Merck and this same outfit (NIH) had established several chimp lab to research viral vaccines in West AFrica in the 70's. It is well documented as the "VLABI-II "of West AFrica. Oddly enough, it was to develop a HEP-B/KS VIRUS vaccine in chimps which just happens to be the same virus the gay men in New YOrk were suffering from. Even prior to that, MERCK and NIH, had developed the virus cancer program(VCP) in 1968 which attempted to show viruses cause cancer in humans. THis program was specifically designed to show that HEP-B and HERP-8 could cause the new "KS" virus which lead to "opportunistic' ailments( to me and you, a deficiency in the immune system). Strange though , this kind of cancer causing virus(HIV) only started showing up in gay men after the trials, and there was not one blood sample to support that prior. I mean , men had been fucking men way before that I think. I could be wrong.

Luc Montagnier who I believe the scientific community credits with the discovery of the HIV virus, was searching for revers transcriptase activity from the same plasma samples from gay men in New York and his story is that he found traces of what we now know as HIV in most of the samples. These were the only samples on record with the combination of viruses in the U.S. at that time.

Another little nugget of info in terms of time. there is a JAMA report from 1986 that shows that in 1981 20% of the men were infected, but by 1984, 40% became infected. THere are other examples, but it's useless to post it here at this time. If you wanted to check though, you can check out the full report on testing gay man in Holland at that same time.

This KS virus is unique to the scientist who is researching it, it seems.. THe virus supposedly had been documented as far back as 1872 but was never considered part of any "opportunistic or communicable disease . How it was showing up in hoards of gay men in New York and subsequently in other U.S. cities and in clinical participants of the Cancer Virus Program(VCP), has never been answered. Even more interesting is that this new "kS' virus is very closely related to a monkey virus knows as Herpes virus Saimiri. Though related to other cancers such as lymphoma, this virus was showing up in gay men 3-4 more times. I think it has been well established that HIV is a cancer causing virus that ends with "opportunistic" ailments that cause cellular death.

Furthermore, this "ks" virus is ten fold in gay men who have died than the general population suffering from any other form of cancer caused by HIV.

I went a step further to look up t-lymphotropic viruses that may have similarities to Simian viruses yet are only present in humans. Interestingly , Merck and the NIH had been researching and developing vaccines for the same retrovirus prototypes knows as (I,II,III,IV) as far back as 1979. These names are no longer used when referring to the retro virus HIV, however , the pioneers of this research in Africa, during the same time the trials were going on is Merck and the NIH. Just a coincidence , I guess. What was odd though is that "wiki" states this about those" t lympho" types previously mentioned. " These viruses were discovered in rural Cameroon in 2005, and were, it is presumed, transmitted from monkeys to hunters of monkeys, through bites and scratches. Strange they would say that these viruses were discovered in 2005 in Cameroon and was transmitted to humans when they were already being studied , 30 something years ago.

Post: #34

Obviously a man made disease!

Alan Cantwell, MD On The
ManMade Origin Of AIDS
A John Le Kay Interview
HeyokaMagazine.com
Reprinted With Permission
2-7-7


1. When and what first sparked your interest and writing about aids?

*Before the AIDS epidemic became official in 1981, I had been studying cancer and had found bacteria (not viruses) in certain cancers. In particular, as a dermatologist I had studied "classic" cases of Kaposi's sarcoma in older non-gay men.
This work and subsequent KS research was published in 1981 in scientific journals --- but it was totally ignored when the AIDS epidemic hit and when KS became widely known with the infamous (in my opinion) term "gay cancer." At the time, I felt (and still do) that scientists were not telling the whole truth about AIDS and its origin from biological warfare and from cancer virus research that took place extensively in the decade before AIDS, namely the 1970s.

2. In Queer blood, the secret aids genocide plot, you mention that in the 1960s, a group of bio warfare experts appeared before a United nations panel estimated that a large scale killing operation of the general population would cost $2,000 per square kilometer with conventional weapons. $800 with nuclear weapons, and $ 1 dolor with biological weapons.

Do you believe this was the primary objective for the research and testing of these biological agents back in the 60s at Fort Detrick and other places or was it something else?

*Governments are always seeking new biological warfare agents, just as they are always seeking more powerful military weapons. Bioweapons are indeed the cheapest form of warfare. They kill yet they maintain the infrastructure, unless one uses microbes such as deadly anthrax spores that can contaminate an environment for centuries.

3. In 1986, a researcher contacted Pearce Wright at the London times with information on the origin of AIDS and how the AIDS virus was injected, via a small pox vaccine into millions of Africans. Do you know if this researcher ever reveled his identity?

* No, I don't know the identity of this person. After the smallpox vaccine story hit the front-page of The London Times, the story was subsequently killed and never appeared again in any of the world major media. The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the World Health Organization was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. About 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO.The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus on the continent. I am sure the "big business" of vaccine makers had something to do with censoring the story. Also the Times story provided another explanation for the outbreak in Africa other than the widely-accepted "monkey in the African jungle" theory of HIV/AIDS.

4. Do you believe it was the Bovine visna virus and the sheep visna virus, that was used to create the AIDS virus and how similar do these viruses look to the AIDS virus under a microscope?

* I am not a virologist and I would never speculate exactly how HIV was "made." Suffice to say, I believe HIV came out of primate (monkey, chimp) animal cancer research whereby primates were injected (before AIDS) with various cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses -- and these viruses were transferred between various animal species as well and adapted to human tissue. All of this was part of the "war on cancer" conducted by the National Cancer Institute. The NCI also had close ties to the U.S. biological warfare establishment. The military's biological warfare unit at Ft Detrick, Maryland, was joined to the National Cancer Institute in the early 1970s, by order of President Richard Nixon.

Post: #35

(09-24-2011 03:12 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Obviously a man made disease!

Alan Cantwell, MD On The
ManMade Origin Of AIDS
A John Le Kay Interview
HeyokaMagazine.com
Reprinted With Permission
2-7-7


1. When and what first sparked your interest and writing about aids?

*Before the AIDS epidemic became official in 1981, I had been studying cancer and had found bacteria (not viruses) in certain cancers. In particular, as a dermatologist I had studied "classic" cases of Kaposi's sarcoma in older non-gay men.
This work and subsequent KS research was published in 1981 in scientific journals --- but it was totally ignored when the AIDS epidemic hit and when KS became widely known with the infamous (in my opinion) term "gay cancer." At the time, I felt (and still do) that scientists were not telling the whole truth about AIDS and its origin from biological warfare and from cancer virus research that took place extensively in the decade before AIDS, namely the 1970s.

2. In Queer blood, the secret aids genocide plot, you mention that in the 1960s, a group of bio warfare experts appeared before a United nations panel estimated that a large scale killing operation of the general population would cost $2,000 per square kilometer with conventional weapons. $800 with nuclear weapons, and $ 1 dolor with biological weapons.

Do you believe this was the primary objective for the research and testing of these biological agents back in the 60s at Fort Detrick and other places or was it something else?

*Governments are always seeking new biological warfare agents, just as they are always seeking more powerful military weapons. Bioweapons are indeed the cheapest form of warfare. They kill yet they maintain the infrastructure, unless one uses microbes such as deadly anthrax spores that can contaminate an environment for centuries.

3. In 1986, a researcher contacted Pearce Wright at the London times with information on the origin of AIDS and how the AIDS virus was injected, via a small pox vaccine into millions of Africans. Do you know if this researcher ever reveled his identity?

* No, I don't know the identity of this person. After the smallpox vaccine story hit the front-page of The London Times, the story was subsequently killed and never appeared again in any of the world major media. The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the World Health Organization was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. About 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO.The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus on the continent. I am sure the "big business" of vaccine makers had something to do with censoring the story. Also the Times story provided another explanation for the outbreak in Africa other than the widely-accepted "monkey in the African jungle" theory of HIV/AIDS.

4. Do you believe it was the Bovine visna virus and the sheep visna virus, that was used to create the AIDS virus and how similar do these viruses look to the AIDS virus under a microscope?

* I am not a virologist and I would never speculate exactly how HIV was "made." Suffice to say, I believe HIV came out of primate (monkey, chimp) animal cancer research whereby primates were injected (before AIDS) with various cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses -- and these viruses were transferred between various animal species as well and adapted to human tissue. All of this was part of the "war on cancer" conducted by the National Cancer Institute. The NCI also had close ties to the U.S. biological warfare establishment. The military's biological warfare unit at Ft Detrick, Maryland, was joined to the National Cancer Institute in the early 1970s, by order of President Richard Nixon.

There's so much more to this story too. THis is just one of many. You almost have to go to several different sources to corroborate what one person says because I also found out that he had an agenda , albeit, a lot of what he was saying was entirely factual. When you read the merck manuals of 1968-1979, and the medical data list of the NIH,you start rethinking your view that the poor monkey was the only one responsible, that's for sure.

Post: #36

There is more to the story, you are correct. But the "story" we have been given about a monkey in Africa contacting one human being and causing this mass epidemic is laughable, something straight out of a hollywood movie.

Are you familiar with the Hepatitis study they did on gays in San Fran?

I am off the belief that the Big pharma companies created this disease to help push there profits and curb the population in the process. I will assume you are familiar with the Eugenics movement.!!

Post: #37

(09-24-2011 03:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  There is more to the story, you are correct. But the "story" we have been given about a monkey in Africa contacting one human being and causing this mass epidemic is laughable, something straight out of a hollywood movie.

Are you familiar with the Hepatitis study they did on gays in San Fran?

I am off the belief that the Big pharma companies created this disease to help push there profits and curb the population in the process. I will assume you are familiar with the Eugenics movement.!!

R. Bwoy
did you see my previous post that I posted today, prior to your post today?, It goes into detail. I think we are thinking or writing along the same lines.

Post: #38

Did any of the posters here read the wikipedia article cited by OldNem, which went into extensive detail explaining how the rapid emergence of AIDS in Africa between roughly 1930 and 1950 may have been due to widespread and repeated VACCINATIONS?

I don't see this addressed in the "conspiracy" style debate here.

To summarize ( I am not a medical doctor) AIDS may have "jumped" to a hunter of bushmeat by being being bitten perhaps by a wounded monkey or some other blood-blood contact. Eating was not emphasized as a possible vehicle of transmission as blood-blood contact seems most dangerous.

This type of wounded-hunter transmission presumably would have happened throughout history, but late 1800's -1900's colonization caused work camp population clusters that encouraged more bushmeat consumption, hunting to supply it, and prostitution due to wife separation.

Before such colonial population concentrations and widespread vaccination campaigns by Colonialists, one-off hunter infections would probably have died off with the injured hunter before he could infect a critical mass/number of others for the rather complex reasons explained in the article.

It's a little beyond me, but it seems like if you infect 100's or 1000's of people at a time with SIV (The monkey/ape version of HIV) contaminated needles, you have a better chance of creating a viable, deadly, contagious mutation (HIV) than if hunters occasionally get exposed to SIV from monkey bites once every few years. Remember, the monkeys have SIV not HIV. SIMIAN, not HUMAN. I think it has to get into a human and then mutate into a human-hostable form.

Worse, they vaccinated people a LOT, one mention was 10 times a year. They didn't sterilize needles. So once ONE worker caught a mutated form of SIV -- now HIV-- repeated vaccinations including him would SPREAD THAT NEW STRAIN around, MORE WITH EACH NEW vaccination cycle! The incubation period was YEARS, so all the damage done before anyone gets sick.

Now you have a concentrated colony of workers with prostitutes and someone/a few have a viable, spreadable, deadly form of the virus.
Pre widespread penicillin, so untreated syphilis and gonorrhea, thus a lot of open sores on genitals. A ripe environment to reach a critical mass of infected people.

Bad, bad news.

Next you reach a critical mass where enough people are infected so that the new, virile form doesn't die out for--gulp-- 32,000 years. Or something like that. That's how long they're guessing it took for monkeys to become immune to their version.

Lucky we have hard-working, smart researchers who write articles instead of speculate about conspiracy theories so probably they'll figure out how to crush aids like they did with polio.

There's no need to dream up any more conspiracy theories when there's obvious proof humans, when led by the right murderous creep, are all too eager to exterminate each other. Nagasaki/Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Gulags.

That's not news. What would be news is if people stopped listening to power-crazed creeps trying to turn them against each other.

Post: #39

Actually ass sex was/is prevalent in many cultures, because it was the only kind of natural birth control there is and still have sex. I think it is still prevalent in Africa in some areas. Africans also had some pretty screwed up sexual beliefs, like raping virgin babies would cure you of HIV and other stupid shit like that. Courtesans in ancient greece would charge more for vaginal vs anal sex because of pregnancy risk.

Post: #40

(09-24-2011 11:57 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  From what I understand the first set of gay men with AIDS like symptoms started showing up in New York in 1979, which is a few years prior to the "epidemic" first getting coined as such in Africa. THis has nothing to do with gay men being the cause of HIV , but rather serving as a conduit.

Those who got AIDS in 1979 may have got it around 1970. You know it takes time to get symptoms.

Quote:How this came to be has always been a mystery to me and has never been explained in terms of cross-atlantic viruses spreading only to a sub group of men in New York from Africa. That's quite an exclusive club for two "African Jumping Species" to set apart from the entire population.

This one has a quite easy explanation - some businessmen went to Africa (very few people air traveled trans-atlantic for pleasure in 70s, too expensive), and fucked some local whores. And they were also gay - secretly, of course, again it was 1970.
It could have been another way too - someone from Africa traveled to NYC (as a diplomat, for example) who was also gay.

Quote:1. No one explained how the gay men somehow got this virus which originally came from Cameroon/COngo via monkeys. The study shows these men who signed up for the clinical trials,(SEE NIH report) were not well traveled sex tourist that were going to Africa in such alarming numbers, but regular men, some of whom were homeless.

If the dude was from Africa, it explains it. Some people with HIV do not develop AIDS, so he may have been one of those. There is plethora of reasonable explanations.

Quote:Why weren't other samples used from across the globe? THey were other men suffering from the same exact symptoms.

What was the goal of the study?

Quote:2. WHy were they having such a higher incident rate that those in the birthplace of the said virus?

I explained my opinion above. Different lifestyle.

Now, you posted a lot of info, but I do not see how it is relevant. Do you have your theory behind them?

Post: #41

(09-24-2011 03:55 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  There is more to the story, you are correct. But the "story" we have been given about a monkey in Africa contacting one human being and causing this mass epidemic is laughable, something straight out of a hollywood movie.

You should have studied biology in high school more.

Quote:I am off the belief that the Big pharma companies created this disease to help push there profits and curb the population in the process. I will assume you are familiar with the Eugenics movement.!!

If you think so, I have a nice tinfoil hat to sell to you!

Post: #42

(09-25-2011 12:42 AM)ersatz Wrote:  Actually ass sex was/is prevalent in many cultures, because it was the only kind of natural birth control there is and still have sex.

If a traditional African man only fucks his wife, it doesn't matter where he fucks her. He'll likely pass HIV to her anyway. But if he fucks different dudes who, in turn, fuck other different dudes - another story.

Post: #43

(09-25-2011 04:23 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(09-24-2011 11:57 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  From what I understand the first set of gay men with AIDS like symptoms started showing up in New York in 1979, which is a few years prior to the "epidemic" first getting coined as such in Africa. THis has nothing to do with gay men being the cause of HIV , but rather serving as a conduit.

Those who got AIDS in 1979 may have got it around 1970. You know it takes time to get symptoms.

Quote:How this came to be has always been a mystery to me and has never been explained in terms of cross-atlantic viruses spreading only to a sub group of men in New York from Africa. That's quite an exclusive club for two "African Jumping Species" to set apart from the entire population.

This one has a quite easy explanation - some businessmen went to Africa (very few people air traveled trans-atlantic for pleasure in 70s, too expensive), and fucked some local whores. And they were also gay - secretly, of course, again it was 1970.
It could have been another way too - someone from Africa traveled to NYC (as a diplomat, for example) who was also gay.

Quote:1. No one explained how the gay men somehow got this virus which originally came from Cameroon/COngo via monkeys. The study shows these men who signed up for the clinical trials,(SEE NIH report) were not well traveled sex tourist that were going to Africa in such alarming numbers, but regular men, some of whom were homeless.

If the dude was from Africa, it explains it. Some people with HIV do not develop AIDS, so he may have been one of those. There is plethora of reasonable explanations.

Quote:Why weren't other samples used from across the globe? THey were other men suffering from the same exact symptoms.

What was the goal of the study?

Quote:2. WHy were they having such a higher incident rate that those in the birthplace of the said virus?

I explained my opinion above. Different lifestyle.

Now, you posted a lot of info, but I do not see how it is relevant. Do you have your theory behind them?

Nem,
as to your first response stating "it takes time to get symptoms", no one in the scientific community has ever quantified the time it would take to develop symptoms, since that would be based on the incubation time, viral load, strain, immune response , when you had sex with an infected person and so forth. That point of view has been debunked many years ago and you can place a call into the CDC and ask them whether or not symptoms may start in 4-6 weeks form incubation , or a few years. They would never be able to give you an accurate answer on HIV or any other STD for that matter. From what I understand , there is no quantified value to the time you have symptoms from HIV, nor the time it may turn into full blown AIDS. You would have to be quite brilliant at determining what your t-cell count would drop to daily based on symptoms and your immune respone. Maybe you are the rare exception to determining quantified analysis . I did in fact give you the increase in percentages in men who were part of the study that increased in a very short period of time form 20% to 40 %, between 1980-1984.Perhaps you can read up more on the study , how it was conducted, why it was conducted, and then maybe it can be shown that it may not take as long as one would think. So, to your point that "those who got AIDs in 1979 , may have had it in 1970" doesn't add up since the study clearly states that they all got HIV, within a much shorter period of time.

To your second point, "some businessmen went to Africa and fuck the local whores, and they were gay secretly. Or, "perhaps some diplomat went to NYC and passed it around", well, again the point here ,none of the men had reported having any contact with THE CONGO/Cameroon, whores from Africa, nor eating monkey meat. Maybe you have information that they did these things, but from their own accounts they did not. At some point we are going to have to filter out information stated on wiki, pure conjecture, or a plethora of assumptions, as opposed to many many different sources of information that was/is available to bare out the facts at that time. Perhaps the things you have stated could be so, but, we do have proof that the things you are stating remain untrue based on actual accounts.

To your third question in terms of the goal of the study: Merck and the NIH had been trying to determine whether or not certain combinations of viruses causes cancer in humans. It wasn't to "study HIV",since, there was no such thing scientifically known. As I clearly stated in the post you are now quoting, There is a ton of information on the labs, the location, the doctors involved, companies, the dates the labs were established( way before HIV was even thought of) and the patients themselves. It may be worth looking into, but perhaps for you , you are already satisfied.

Lastly ,in terms of you stating that the information I may have presented as an alternative to what you read on "wiki", as relevant or not , is entirely up to you. I don't have a theory and have never stood behind what wiki or any other singular source states. If you yourself have researched dates, quantified times, opportunity, names of individuals, companies involved, then perhaps for you, "wiki" is the most trusted source of information and as you eloquently stated" all other theories "suck". There is a lot of information that I have posted to your posts concerning "wiki" but I'm not sure you dove into it so it would be hard /irrelevant to discuss it in any great detail. Perfect example, the statement wiki makes about Cameroon and the discovery of certain t-lymphotrophic viruses being discovered in 2005. This was the same virus that was claimed to be passed on by monkeys scratching /biting monkey hunters, which in turn , was passed on, then mysteriously turned into HIV. This is clearly erroneous and goes to the heart of revers transcriptase history dating as far back as 1968 with the trials MERCK and the NIH conducted. Yet, you and I never discussed such errors of your source. Maybe someone edited that incorrectly. Yea, that's it.

Either way , healthy debate, wasn't here to support/debunk any theory and I appreciate the time you took to clarify your sources and views..

Post: #44

Oldnemesis - Your remarks regarding Africans are insulting to say the least, you are ignorant beyond belief.

Post: #45

(09-25-2011 12:34 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Oldnemesis - Your remarks regarding Africans are insulting to say the least, you are ignorant beyond belief.

You know something equally strange is that know one ever thinks about who actually discovered SIV in the poor monkey. "Wiki" states that "in 1983 , AIDs was discovered in the captive monkeys in the United States"and that "SIV was isolated in 1985 in some of these animals". THis would lead one to believe that this was the first time SIV was isolated in monkeys. Maybe the acronym "S.I.V." can throw a person off, but upon closer evaluation, you would find a nugget of information as to what MERCK called it . If you read on in the article , "wiki" ,states that the discovery of SIV was made shortly after HIV-1 had been isolated as the cause of AIDS.Now, when I look at the MERCK trials, they were already isolating SIV strains in monkeys since they were looking for reverse transcriptase activity at the cellular level in the monkeys they had in the program. I wonder if anyone knows what MERCK called SIV back then? I don't believe the Merck manual, or the doctor you quoted can be seen as the sole source of information, but a compounded analysis of all the information is probably healthier. So much info, so little time.

Post: #46

(09-25-2011 08:10 AM)Pusscrook Wrote:  From what I understand , there is no quantified value to the time you have symptoms from HIV, nor the time it may turn into full blown AIDS. You would have to be quite brilliant at determining what your t-cell count would drop to daily based on symptoms and your immune respone.

Yes. This means people who went to Congo, got HIV seven years ago, got infected there and then infected others may be completely unaware they actually had it because they didn't have any unusual symptoms - and therefore they did not participate in the study. Now those who they got infected may have developed AIDS symptoms much earlier - and therefore got into the study.

Quote:To your second point, "some businessmen went to Africa and fuck the local whores, and they were gay secretly. Or, "perhaps some diplomat went to NYC and passed it around", well, again the point here ,none of the men had reported having any contact with THE CONGO/Cameroon, whores from Africa, nor eating monkey meat.

I can easily imagine how some married dude might have wanted to withhold the information about visiting Africa and being rawdogged by a black dude while there. Especially in 70s. If the study relied on personal testimonies for this kind of information, it eventually means nothing.

You also ignored two more opportunities - some of those dudes were fucked by a dude from Africa who left and therefore wasn't part of the study. Or someone who visited Africa, got HIV, brought it back and infected others may already be dead, or left the country.

In short, the fact that nobody in that study admitted to visiting Africa and having sex with some locals there, eventually means nothing. Sure, one could build a huge conspiracy bridge on that foundation, but I'm not buying it.

Quote:Lastly ,in terms of you stating that the information I may have presented as an alternative to what you read on "wiki", as relevant or not , is entirely up to you. I don't have a theory and have never stood behind what wiki or any other singular source states.

As with most things related to science, the official theory is not perfect, doesn't explain everything and has faults. But unless you have another theory which explains more, and has less faults than the official theory, this discussion is eventually useless. This should have been actually my first question - what is your theory? This is very important, as for example if your theory has many obvious flaws which you cannot address, then it doesn't matter how many studies support it.

Post: #47

(09-25-2011 12:34 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Oldnemesis - Your remarks regarding Africans are insulting to say the least,

Then I suggest you don't read them. I assume nobody forces you to do so?

Quote:you are ignorant beyond belief.

So could you please enlighten us?

Post: #48

Here's a great link for anyone that is interested in some of the other points of view, besides what may be printed by "wiki". You can find some pretty in depth and provocative information by the very man who discovered the virus. Check out the videos with him and gallo too. Great stuff!


http://rethinkingaids.com/

Post: #49

Looks like another tinfoil conspiracy site to me.

Post: #50

(09-29-2011 05:27 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  Looks like another tinfoil conspiracy site to me.

hahaha. what did it take you , all of 5 minutes ? I'm still digging thru it, and its been quite informative ,especially reading luc's essays/books on his discovery of hiv, aids. That's just a beginning but you're fast man!