Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Misidentification and HIV is actually quite difficult to transmit relative to most other diseases. It also took quite a while to make the leap out of Africa. Think about the sexual revolution here in the US being a perfect vector for spreading HIV plus other diseases but with the fact that HIV can lay dormant for a whole lot longer.
I believe the first US cases weren't until the late 50's and the first deaths in the 70's but those were identified more after the fact. It's documented in wikipedia pretty well.
Think of it like a serial killer. It's not until you find the 2nd, 3rd body etc. and then you start looking back and there are missing people with a similar back story. Next thing you know they are catching somebody with dozens of victims stretching back 20 years because they know what to look for.
Yeah, your serial killer analogy is a good one. Until you recognize that there IS a pattern, the deaths just don't stand out. As soon as your spot the pattern THEN you can start to see it's extent. It was definitely the same thing with AIDS. The fact that it killed INDIRECTLY hid the underlying cause of death. Instead, those deaths were attributed to their obvious cause (ie cancers etc).
First of all, I put that disclaimer in the title for a reason. I don't want this conversation become a mud-slinging, theory bashing screaming match between people who think they are right at any cost.
I have a theory and I want to get the sensible input from other people who are willing to listen, consider and provide me with their thoughtful responses.
If this becomes anything less that civilized discourse I am going to beg the mods to delete the whole shebang forthwith.
Now then.....
I have a theory. It is a theory I have had for many years, and from time to time I read or hear about "things" that only serve to reinforce that theory. I suppose that most of you will consider this a conspiracy theory, but I have also read many articles and books that support it, so here goes....
" ...human herpes virus 8 (HHV-8) (or KSHV), the actual cause of Kaposi’s sarcoma, must have entered the USA simultaneously and in company with HIV..."
This is pretty mind-boggling to me because I believe that there is a VERY strong connection between herpes and HIV/AIDS.
Those of you who are around my age (56) might remember that back in the 1970s, before AIDS reared its ugly head, that there was a "genital herpes epidemic" (alas, I was a victim. although I have since learned how to manage it beautifully, but that's another story).
My theory is that the "herpes" epidemic was engineered to evaluate and track the pattern of how a sexually transmitted disease would be transmitted. It was the "dry run" so to speak for a bigger, and more virulent virus to follow.
I believe with all my heart that the government engineered AIDS. Why? Because they "could". What a beautiful biological weapon to have "on hand" for future use if you need to clear out a population without any indication that it was an WMD. What better method than through sexual transmission? Something that is necessary for survival of the species!
Anyway, I digress. Sorry.
So let's say that AIDS (which now, thanks to the article I referenced at the beginning of this post), has a CONNECTION with herpes. What if it is a mutated form of the Herpes virus? What if the Herpes epidemic was MORE than just a dry run. What if it was a failed first attempt at distributing a fatal, sexually transmitted disease?
I am not aware of anyone out there who has a similar theory. (If you know of anyone, please pass the information along to me.) I do know that many people suspect that the government is somehow responsible for HIV/AIDS (if you don't believe me just google "Controversial book about AIDS" and you will see many). But I don't know if anyone has touched upon the herpes/HIV/AIDS connection.
Please share your thoughts and experiences and any other information that you think would be informative. Thanks.
Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS
by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. This article regards a matter of global urgency transcending better known AIDS threats. It describes a universal challenge posed by ever increasing numbers of plagues predicted to depopulate at least half of the world’s current human inhabitants within two generations. This documented science virtually proves, through the process of elimination and a review of the most updated evidence, the origin of HIV/AIDS as an iatrogenic (i.e., man-made) outcome of specific vaccination experiments.
What you just wrote here is so patently incorrect as to be mindboggling.
It was a dispute between the co-authors because one of them went and published it without the others approval and stripped them from the book credits. The other author sued him and won.
The comment in my previous post was made from memory. I did find a piece from Insight Magazine that came from archives that was posted on another site. It pretty much says what I remember about this.
The lawsuit was actually initiated by the publisher, Alfred S. Regnery, who wanted to stop the publishing of the book due to a previously terminated contract with another publisher. It was later in the lawsuit that co-writer Duesberg joined in. Evan Tolchinsky was Ellison's attorney who took the case without pay due to free speech issues.
Alfred Regnery once worked for a high ranking official in the U.S. Justice Department, as did Judge Sprizzo who oversaw the trial. And co-author Duesberg openly confessed to being contacted by Federal officials to suppress information in the book.
I could pay to bring up the archive myself, but won't. Here is the page I am referring to. Scroll down about 2/3 of the page and find "Federal Court Declares AIDS Book Illegal" for the article.
well, I must say there is clear evidence that it was a government conspiracy.
AIDS as a biological weapon has been an utter failure. Cant think of a single thing that would be better proof....
AIDS/HIV has failed to kill off "the Gays". It has failed to depopulate Africa.... Yes it is still with us and yes it is horrible but if this was a bio-weapon it was a bad one.
and really being very serious here, if the government were to use a bio-weapon and drop it into the public would they really do it in a way that killed its own people? Not really smart... but then "not really smart" might be the second "proof" it was the goverment.
one more question which "the government" was it? there are 196 nations each with at least one "the government"
I'm not one of those people who believes everything the government says, but I'm also not someone who believes everything conspiracy theorists say. But this thread has been interesting to read...this is a topic I'm curious about.
well, I must say there is clear evidence that it was a government conspiracy.
AIDS as a biological weapon has been an utter failure. Cant think of a single thing that would be better proof....
AIDS/HIV has failed to kill off "the Gays". It has failed to depopulate Africa.... Yes it is still with us and yes it is horrible but if this was a bio-weapon it was a bad one.
and really being very serious here, if the government were to use a bio-weapon and drop it into the public would they really do it in a way that killed its own people? Not really smart... but then "not really smart" might be the second "proof" it was the goverment.
one more question which "the government" was it? there are 196 nations each with at least one "the government"
Biological weapons as a whole don't work very well - for the simple reason that once released they are nearly impossible to CONTROL (especially if you don't already have a VACCINE for it). That's why they are not used much.
If we had the technology to make something like HIV -today- genetic therapies would be a damn sight further along. Cystic fibrosis would be a distant memory. Cancer would not be anywhere near as serious. We'd be able to cure a host more afflictions than what we actually can.
For AIDS to be man-made, we'd need a technology level well in advance of what we got today. And we'd need it available decades ago, maybe a century ago. Dr. Moreau is actually a fairly reasonable suspect, if he hadn't been science fiction.
Here is evidence that AIDS is not man-made: the great and the powerful die.
No matter what their wealth or power, the premiers of the Soviet Union died, the presidents of the United States, the multibillionaires and the scientists. They die from cancers, from heart attacks from strokes and from old age. And if we had the skills required to build HIV, they wouldn't have had to.
I'd be more inclined to believe that there was a slowness of response in some countries because it was percieved as a disease primarily attacking undesirable elements. It wasn't untill significant percentages of entire nations were infected that some people got off their butts.
Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS
by Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. This article regards a matter of global urgency transcending better known AIDS threats. It describes a universal challenge posed by ever increasing numbers of plagues predicted to depopulate at least half of the world’s current human inhabitants within two generations. This documented science virtually proves, through the process of elimination and a review of the most updated evidence, the origin of HIV/AIDS as an iatrogenic (i.e., man-made) outcome of specific vaccination experiments.
As for the Herpes connection, I have not researched it, but it is certainly a possibility.
I am in the medical profession and when AIDS first got media coverage as a gay disease (Yeah, sure, viruses know your sexual orientation ) and all the other "theories" my hinky-o-meter went into the red zone.
So, I have studied this disease for many years and also have taken care of people who have it. I firmly believe it is a designer virus. Obviously humans and other life forms would not exist if their own immune systems were turned on themselves. Nature seems to favor procreation and such a disease would not come out of nature without human intervention.
If we had the technology to make something like HIV -today- genetic therapies would be a damn sight further along. Cystic fibrosis would be a distant memory. Cancer would not be anywhere near as serious. We'd be able to cure a host more afflictions than what we actually can.
For AIDS to be man-made, we'd need a technology level well in advance of what we got today. And we'd need it available decades ago, maybe a century ago. Dr. Moreau is actually a fairly reasonable suspect, if he hadn't been science fiction.
Here is evidence that AIDS is not man-made: the great and the powerful die.
No matter what their wealth or power, the premiers of the Soviet Union died, the presidents of the United States, the multibillionaires and the scientists. They die from cancers, from heart attacks from strokes and from old age. And if we had the skills required to build HIV, they wouldn't have had to.
I'd be more inclined to believe that there was a slowness of response in some countries because it was percieved as a disease primarily attacking undesirable elements. It wasn't untill significant percentages of entire nations were infected that some people got off their butts.
Yeah, this post is RIGHT ON TARGET in EVERY ASPECT.
As for the Herpes connection, I have not researched it, but it is certainly a possibility.
I am in the medical profession and when AIDS first got media coverage as a gay disease (Yeah, sure, viruses know your sexual orientation ) and all the other "theories" my hinky-o-meter went into the red zone.
So, I have studied this disease for many years and also have taken care of people who have it. I firmly believe it is a designer virus. Obviously humans and other life forms would not exist if their own immune systems were turned on themselves. Nature seems to favor procreation and such a disease would not come out of nature without human intervention.
The problem with your logic is that if THAT (the statement in red) were true then there would be NO deadly deseases - since MOST communicable deseases tend to strike down children and thus threaten procreation.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The other author sued him and won.
) and all the other "theories" my hinky-o-meter went into the red zone. 
