State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS

HIV/AIDS is an extremely deadly disease, which has plagued people of all walks of life. This has taken the lives of many, and is still quite puzzling today.

There are many thoughts on the origin, or this disease, from man made, to intercourse with a monkey. While on another search I found this excerpt from the book State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS written by Boyd E. Graves.

I contemplated writing this thread, but figured that it might open up the discussion about the dangers of those in power, and there sometimes true agenda. Now whether or not this is in fact a disease that was made for a particular race or not, this has wrecked havoc in many lives, and deserves to be looked into.

Whether you choose to believe the information stated by this man, the dates, and people involved is of course of your own choosing. But if the point of this disease being transmitted from a man to monkey encounter, then this should be a much easier read.

I will post some of the book, and the link to the full page.

The History of the Development of AIDS
Chapter Excerpt from “State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS”
by Boyd E. Graves, J.D.

The true history of the origin of AIDS can be traced throughout the 20th Century and back to 1878. On April 29 of that year the United States passed a “FEDERAL QUARANTINE ACT”.

The United States began a significant effort to investigate “causes” of epidemic diseases. In 1887, the effort was enhanced with the mandate of the U.S. “LABORATORY OF HYGIENE”. This lab was run by Dr. Joseph J. Kinyoun, a deep rooted-racist, who served the eugenics movement with dedication.

Two years later, 1889, we were able to identify “mycoplasmas”, a transmissible agent, that is now found at the heart of human diseases, including (AIDS) HIV.

In 1893, we strengthened the Federal Quarantine Act and suddenly there was an explosion of polio.

In 1898, we knew we could use mycoplasma to cause epidemics, because we were able to do so in cattle, and we saw it in tobacco plants.

In 1899, the U.S. Congress began investigating “leprosy in the United States”.

In 1902, We organized a “Station for Experimental Evolution” and we were able to identify diseases of an ethnic nature.

In 1904, we used mycoplasma to cause an epidemic in horses.

In 1910, we used mycoplasma to cause an epidemic in fowl/birds.

In 1917, we formed the “Federation of the American Society for Experimental Biology” (FASEB).

In 1918, the influenza virus killed millions of unsuspecting. It was a flu virus modified with a bird mycoplasma for which human primates had no “acquired immunity”.

In 1921, lead eugenics philosopher, Betrand Russell, publicly supported the “necessity for “organized” plagues” against the Black population.

In 1931, we secretly tested African Americans and we tested AIDS in sheep.

In 1935, we learned we could crystallize the tobacco mycoplasma, and it would remain infectious.

In 1943, we officially began our bio-warfare program. Shortly thereafter, we were finding our way to New Guinea to study mycoplasma in humans.

In 1945, we witnessed the greatest influx of foreign scientists in history into the U.S. biological program. Operation Paperclip will live in infamy as one of the darkest programs of a twisted parallel government fixated on genocide.

www.boydgraves.com...

The Smoking Gun of AIDS: a 1971 Flowchart

In 1977, a secret federal virus program produced 15,000 gallons of AIDS. The record reveals the United States was represented by Dr. Robert Gallo and the USSR was represented by Dr. Novakhatsky of the diabolical Ivanosky Institute. On August 21, 1999, the world first saw the flowchart of the plot to thin the Black Population.

The 1971 AIDS flowchart coordinates over 20,000 scientific papers and fifteen years of progress reports of a secret federal virus development program. The epidemiology of AIDS is an identical match to the "research logic" identified in the five section foldout. The flowchart is page 61 of Progress Report #8 (1971) of the Special Virus program of the United States of America. We today, challenge world scientists to discussion of this document find.

We believe there is a daily, growing number of world experts who are all coming to the same conclusion regarding the significance of the flowchart. Dr. Garth Nicolson has examined the flowchart as well as other top experts from around the world. It is time for Dr. Michael Morrissey of Germany to examine the flowchart and report to the world. In addition, we have now examined the 1978 report. It is heresy to continue to further argue the program ended in 1977.

The 1978 report of the development of AIDS leaves no doubt as to the ("narrow result") candidate virus sought by the United States. The flowchart conclusively proves a secret federal plot to develop a "contagious cancer" that "selectively kills."

Here is the actual flowchart.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Every name time and location can be traced, researched a verified.

This was called MK-NAOMI. Which stood for The “MK” portion stands for the two co-authors of the AIDS virus, Robert Manaker and Paul Kotin. The “NAOMI” portion stands for “Negroes are Only Momentary Individuals.”

I will note that he is considered at times as Dr. Boyd Graves, and he openly admits that he is in the medical research field, but not a physician. I enjoy the videos because there is lots of back and forth, and his credentials are put into play.

Here are some videos with the author Boyd Graves.
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

They are located on the bottom of the page.

Peace, NRE.

In 1987 on the front page of the London Times there was an article written by Pearce Wright that included the following.

Aids smallpox [ May 11 1987 ]

On May 11 1987, Pearce Wright, accomplished science-editor of London's The Times ran a front page story with the headline...

"Smallpox Vaccine Triggered AIDS Virus."

An outside consultant to the World Health Organisation had reported to The Times that the WHO having found a connection between their smallpox inoculation programmes and the incidence of "AIDS" in Zambia, Zaire and Brazil had engaged his firm to investigate. Which they did, and found the suspicion correct. However when the report was given to the WHO they would not publish the findings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearce Wright wrote:

"The smallpox vaccine theory would account for the position of each of the seven Central African States which top the table of most affected countries; why Brazil became the most afflicted Latin American Country; and how Haiti became the route for the spread of AIDS to the US. Brazil was the only South American country covered in the eradication of smallpox campaign and has the highest incidence of AIDS in that region, Zaire has 33 million smallpox vaccinations, Zambia 19 million, Tanzania 14 million and so on... Haiti had 14,000 citizens living in Central Africa, they had smallpox inoculations there and eventually returned home."

"After a meeting of 50 experts near Geneva this month it was revealed that up to 75 million (one third of the population of South Africa) could have AIDS within the next five years."

newsmine.org.../plagues/aids/aids-smallpox.txt

NIH- National Institute of Health dismissed concerns of African AIDS Treatment.

WASHINGTON — The government’s research on using an AIDS drug to protect African babies was so flawed that health officials had to use blood tests after the fact to confirm patients got the medicine. Ultimately, they had to acknowledge the study broke federal patient protection rules.

But the National Institutes of Health never told the White House about problems it found in 2002 with its research on the drug nevirapine before President Bush unveiled a $500 million plan to distribute the medicine across Africa, documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

Instead, officials inside the government’s premier health research agency scrambled to keep its safety experts’ concerns from scuttling the use of nevirapine in Africa as a cheap solution to stopping babies from getting AIDS from infected mothers, the memos show.

“Everyone recognized the enormity that this decision could have on the worldwide use of nevirapine to interrupt mother-baby transmission,” NIH’s AIDS research chief, Dr. Edmund C. Tramont, reported March 14, 2002, to his boss, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Drug distributed to African mothers and children
Since then, hundreds of thousand of doses of the drug have been administered to African mothers and babies under the Bush plan.

Up to half those babies may have been stopped from getting AIDS, officials said. But now concerns are emerging about whether patients who received those single doses have developed resistance to further AIDS treatment.

The documents show Tramont and other NIH officials dismissed the problems with the nevirapine research in Uganda as overblown and were slow to report safety concerns to the Food and Drug Administration.


Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has asked the Justice Department to investigate NIH’s conduct. In a letter released Monday, Grassley said he was compelled to do so by “the serious nature of these allegations and the grave implications if the allegations have merit.”

A professional auditor hired by NIH who first helped disclose the problems said in an interview that most of the problems with the research were fixable but NIH officials were in a rush to declare that things were OK.

“It seemed to me we were drawing conclusions too quickly across the board, especially the implementation of nevirapine in South Africa,” auditor Michael Hensley told AP.

Ultimately, NIH did stop the Uganda research for 15 months — from the spring of 2002 to the summer of 2003 — to review the science and take corrective actions.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


Peace, NRE.

There are several logical (and technical) flaws, both with the original post in this thread, as well as with the theory of HIV being manmade.

First, the original post referes to "AIDS" being manmade. AIDS is a syndrome. It is not a tangible or material "thing". It is a collection of symptoms, most notably immunodepletion, which is most frequently caused by the HIV virus. To suggest AIDS is manmade is the same as saying "stuffy noses" are manmade. You're pointing at the symptom, rather than the causative agent. Just a bit of terminology that always bugs me. If you can't understand the basic difference between HIV and AIDS, it makes me unlikely to believe you know enough about the topic to even be talking about it.

Now, as for the logical flaws of the idea: DNA wasn't identified as the definitive hereditary element of organisms until 1952 in the Hershey-Chase experiments. It wouldn't be until the following year, 1953, that the structure of DNA would be elucidated by Watson, Crick, and Franklin (despite Franklin being left off of the paper for what I still firmly believe are totally misogynistic attitudes).

With those two facts in mind, how do you explain the earliest confirmed case of HIV dated to 1959 in a Congolese man, or the possibility that cases were occuring in colonized Africa as early as 1910? Even if you take the later of the two dates, that is still only 7 years after our initial confirmatory discovery of DNA as a hereditary element. We had neither the tools nor the protocols to amplify and modify DNA (this technology not even being born, let alone honed to the point of being able to create a unique virus, until 1972). There is a major technological jump when discussing pre-computer genetics (like those in the 1950s) and computer-era genetics (like those in the 1970s and onward). The sheer computing power needed to sequence and create a new genome (or even just a single gene) simply did not exist in the 1950s.

There is also a document from the Department of Defense Appropriations on July 1, 1969 "Synthetic Biological Agents" stating things such as,

Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

(The information follows) The dramatic progress being made in the
field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this
field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts
considered this matter and provided the following observations:

1. All biological agents up the present time are representatives of
naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists
throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified
scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.
2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be

possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease- causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be

refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon
which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious
disease.
3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could
be completed in approximately 5 years at a total cost of $10
million.

4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular
biology is a relatively new science. There are not many highly
competent scientists in the field. Almost all are in university
laboratories, and they are generally adequately supported from
sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to
initiate an adequate program through the National Academy of
Sciences - National Research Council (NAS-NRC). The matter was
discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were plans were
made to initiate the program. However decreasing funds in CB,
growing criticism of the CB program, and our reluctance to involve
the NAS-NRC in such a controversial endeavor have led us to
postpone it for the past 2 years.

It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who
believe such research should not be undertaken lest it lead
to yet another method of massive killing of large
populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific

knowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of
the ways it could be done, there is little that can be done to devise
defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it, there is little
doubt that this is an important area of potential military
technological inferiority in which there is no adequate research
program.

www.scribd.com...

Peace, NRE.

You can hit some people square over the head with the (SMOKING GUN) and they will still find some reason or another to disbelieve it.

I'm a virologist, I know that those documents are genuine for an absolute fact.

Never in history has there ever been such a controversy over a virus as there has been & still is regarding H.I.V.
and thats due to the fact that there are just about TOO MANY good reasons for it.

I can give it to you any which way you want it, the lighter not quite so sinister money grubbing, glory hound reason for H.I.V. which is not all that much better than Boyd Graves rendition, the corpse pile is still the same exact size regardless of which version you choose, not to mention the fact that one leads into the other and comes full circle. This cann of worms is HUGE, it goes deeper than the Pacific Oceans Mariana Trench.

All of the misleading propaganda thats been purposely put out there to completely confuse people is totally overwheming, because so much of it appears believable. I can give a few examples upon request of things that foot the bill quite well, if need be.

People tend to believe the first thing they see regarding things like this & everyone can't possibly be right, so most people (THE ONES WHO ARE AFFRAID TO LOOK STUPID) go with the lame stream scientific tripe put out by the "CORRUPT AS HELL MEDICAL SCIENCE PROFESSION" of which my research group & I no longer associates ourselves with Boyed Graves is (WAS) the one who's right, he wasn't a conspiracy KooK, he supposedly passed away two years ago, I'm not sold on that one for a few reasons though.

There was NO complete virus found from 1959 either.

I'm a virologist, I know that those documents are genuine for an absolute fact.

The content of your previous posts seems to contradict this. Virologists of the level you claim to be don't make basic biology errors..

There was NO complete virus found from 1959 either.

Why would there be? The envelop is incredibly fragile, which is why it doesn't survive outside the body for very long. DNA is very stable and can survive in preservative conditions for decades. In fact, it would be suspicious if they DID find an intact virus from a sample that long ago. The fact that they didn't (they only found the DNA) suggests a natural degradative process, as anyone with an understanding of virology (which you claim to have) would expect.

There is "NO" complete specimen and "YES" there would be, if there actually was one to be had, which there isn't, so why you keep insisting that 1959 train wreck is iron clad proof of anything completely escapes me altogether.
Do you even know who the person actually was who was purposly misquoted as saying that the 1959 virus fragment was indeed complete, making it proof of the viruses existance before anyone could have ever even been uP to anything deviant ?

Do you actually know who first found what was to be dubbed by the "MEDICAL SCIENCE PROFESSION" as A.I.D.S., a condition brought on by a contagious virus long before any such virus was ever even isolated by ANYONE, let alone had the name H.I.V. taped to it ?

Who was that person who picked uP the first piece of that "GINORMOUS PUZZLE" and got it all rolling for the all the true money grubbing opportunists to pounce on ?
It was most certainly NOT "Frenchie" either lol, just in-case thats what your thinking.

Ohh...and speaking of "FRENCHIE", do you even know from where Dr. Luc Montagnier got the first isolate of H.I.V.
WHICH HE IN THE FIRST PLACE, NAMED ? WHAT MY FRIEND ?

Lets start with simple questions, why don't we ?

Originally posted by alpha68
There is "NO" complete specimen and "YES" there would be, if there actually was one to be had, which there isn't, so why you keep insisting that 1959 train wreck is iron clad proof of anything completely escapes me altogether.
Do you even know who the person actually was who was purposly misquoted as saying that the 1959 virus fragment was indeed complete, making it proof of the viruses existance before anyone could have ever even been uP to anything deviant ?

Before you go any further, please clearly state which 1959 case you're referring to. I have a feeling you're referring to a sample that was tossed out in the late 1990s, but is still used by HIV denialists as a strawman argument.

Go on, tell me which one you're using as proof. I'm assuming you know there was more than one.

Do you actually know who first found what was to be dubbed by the "MEDICAL SCIENCE PROFESSION" as A.I.D.S., a condition brought on by a contagious virus long before any such virus was ever even isolated by ANYONE, let alone had the name H.I.V. taped to it ?

HIV isn't contagious, it is transmissible. Again, further proof that you are not a virologist. This piece of information is subject specific to virology, and you don't know it? What a shocker.

Also, the term AIDS wasn't initially connected to a virus. It was the name given to t he mysterious immunodepletion seen in a small number of patients. It was later connected to a new virus by two different research groups.

Ohh...and speaking of "FRENCHIE", do you even know from where Dr. Luc Montagnier got the first isolate of H.I.V.
WHICH HE IN THE FIRST PLACE, NAMED ? WHAT MY FRIEND ?

His original cultures were from lymphadenopathy aspirates in AIDS patients, and he named the resulting viral isolate lymphadenopathy virus, which was later shown to be a different serotype of the same HTLV virus Gallo isolated.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I like you, your funny.

What 1959 virus am I talking about ?
Take your pick ! Tribe Guy, Manchester Man, Sailor Boy, King TuT or JFK, it dosen't matter.

Call David "Diamond Dave" Ho (THAT NAME RING ANY BELLS ?), director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City if you continue to keep having a problem drinking it all in, because he also says-----> " IT AIN'T ".
Much to manys surprise to, including mine, cause "Dr. Ho" got more than just a few skeletons in his GreaT BiG O'L closet, maybe he's just trying to make uP for it or something, who knows ?

www.bmj.com...

www.aegis.org...

On the brighter side > Your acually kind of correct ! Montagnier isolated it from a homosexual with swollon lymph nodes, but NO AIDS, and actually named it "Lymphadenophty-Associated Virus" (LAV). Gallo about had a coronary when he got wind of it. CDC was riding him and his NIH bosses hard to "SHOW THEM THE AIDS VIRUS" !
Montagnier is not quite the horses ass Gallo is, but he still dosen't have the conscience that he should by any means. Honest BoBs HTLV-1 was said (BY BOB OF COURSE) to not just be able to cause AIDS, but also T-Cell Leukemia as well ? See anything wrong with that ? Gallo sure didn't ! He back to back published it in 1983 !
The hallmark of the retrovirus is that they don't kill the cells that they infect, so Gallo was going with it, and use it to make HIS case for viral-cancer, at the exact same time he stated that his retrovirus, the very same one, his HTLV-1 also caused AIDS in people who were infected with it, tacked on a phoney latent period & everything !


So that would be TWO extremely different diseases from not only ONE single virus, but one single HARMLESS virus on top of that ! Do you see that as being rock-solid proof that Gallo to isn't really a virologist, how could he be RIGHT ? Thats ignorant beyond scientific comprehention isn't it ?

H.I.V. / AIDS is NOT contagious through sex ? ? ? What ever do you mean with that virogist invented word you mentioned ?
How do people contract the virus that has that ungodly long latent period between its contraction & the horrible death that it eventually brings due to the persons immune system being detroyed by said virus that the world knows as "AIDS" then ?

I like you, your funny.

What 1959 virus am I talking about ?
Take your pick ! Tribe Guy, Manchester Man, Sailor Boy, King TuT or JFK, it dosen't matter.

Call David "Diamond Dave" Ho (THAT NAME RING ANY BELLS ?), director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York City if you continue to keep having a problem drinking it all in, because he also says-----> " IT AIN'T ".
Much to manys surprise to, including mine, cause "Dr. Ho" got more than just a few skeletons in his GreaT BiG O'L closet, maybe he's just trying to make uP for it or something, who knows ?

Ho only extracted one of the 1959 samples, which was later recanted. The others stand as still being valid. Why don't you explain the samples taken from a Congolese man in 1959 that show HIV sequence? What's your explanation for that one being invalid?

On the brighter side > Your acually kind of correct ! Montagnier isolated it from a homosexual with swollon lymph nodes, but NO AIDS, and actually named it "Lymphadenophty-Associated Virus" (LAV).

AIDS is a syndrome caused by a virus. You can't isolate a syndrome from a tissue biopsy.

Montagnier is not quite the horses ass Gallo is, but he still dosen't have the conscience that he should by any means. Honest BoBs HTLV-1 was said (BY BOB OF COURSE) to not just be able to cause AIDS, but also T-Cell Leukemia as well ? See anything wrong with that ? Gallo sure didn't ! He back to back published it in 1983 !

The hallmark of the retrovirus is that they don't kill the cells that they infect, so Gallo was going with it, and use it to make HIS case for viral-cancer, at the exact same time he stated that his retrovirus, the very same one, his HTLV-1 also caused AIDS in people who were infected with it, tacked on a phoney latent period & everything !

This could not be more incorrect. Retroviruses absolutely kill CD4+ T cells (causing a CD4+ leukemia). That's why AIDS is diagnosed using viral load and T cell count. You will never see a patient with full blown AIDS symptoms with a CD4+ T cell count above 200. This isn't a coincidence. The HIV virus infects and destroys cell-mediated and humoral immunity by wiping out your CD4+ population.

How could someone supposedly trained in virology make such an elementary mistake?

H.I.V. / AIDS is NOT contagious through sex ? ? ? What ever do you mean with that virogist invented word you mentioned ?

Contagious means a disease is spread through direct contact. Transmissible means it can be spread from person to person by sexual, direct, or fluid contact. HIV is not contagious, it is transmissible. I was just pointing out that, yet again, you were probing you aren't trained in virology, as those are critically important terms when discussing a viral disease.

How do people contract the virus that has that ungodly long latent period between its contraction & the horrible death that it eventually brings due to the persons immune system being detroyed by said virus that the world knows as "AIDS" then ?

They contract it through sexual or fluid contact, making it transmissible, not contagious.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Your just being silly, like I don't know full well what A.I.D.S is.

Duhh ! lol "Of course you can't extract A.I.D.S from tissues."
A.I.D.S. is any combination of 30 or more conditions that all existed on their own long before Montagnier's LAV = H.I.V. was ever isolated. (Let alone that thieving hack Gallo's HTLV-III = H.I.V..) These conditions appear do to a persons immune system being horribly depleted, due to say... having been given incredibly toxic drugs to stop something that has not even begun for example.
They add & subtract from said list whenever they feel like it too, what's it uP or down to today ? 29 or 31 ?

I said... that Dr. Montagnier isolated LAV/H.I.V. from a homosexual male that ONLY had swollen lymph nodes but NO A.I.Ds, meaning that the patient had NO OTHER A.I.D.S defining conditions, but I think you already knew that.

As far as the word "transmissible" goes, sure you & I know what it means, but that may not be the case for others & I don't feel that people should have to get out a "MEDICAL DICTIONARY" in-order to read someones post here on ATS, this isn't and will never become "THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE".
I think that the word "contagious" works just fine in labs all over the world (INCLUDING MINE) when speaking on this topic, so why not here ?

As far as the next "Congo Man" goes, its ALL a complete crock !

What about the CONGOLESE WOMAN ? "CONGOLEEZA RICE" ? Ever heard of the female ?
I'm not kidding ! How on did you miss THAT ONE !

I have been busy and still am, I'm not done.

Originally posted by alpha68

Random ad hominems and gibberish

I'm assuming the lack of content in your post means you can't actually address and of the points or questions I've raised.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


First of all comrade, is that below your CONGO boy or not ? Couldn't be though ? Due to the fact that Dr. Diamond David Lee Ho had his grubby little mitts on Bantu tribe guy as well, whats uP with that ?
You said that "HO didn't handle both"...CORRECT ?

www.cnn.com... = Fraud

Can you please explain how Gallos retrovirus HTLV-1 would or could EVER be able to cause cancer if it (GALLOS RETROVIRUS) killed the cells it infected ? Keeping in mind of course, that not only does cancer not kill cells, it make cell grow, in-fact, it actually makes them grow T-O-O---W-E-L-L !
There is absolutely NO cell killing involved in cancer I hope you know. Also cancer always starts in one single cell as well, a viral attack would send many soldiers to attack a cell (s) and infect many cells as H.I.V. does, not just one wouldn't they ?
Then after your through let me know how that very same virus would or could kill CD-4 cells causing A.I.D.S ?

Gallo can't without admitting fraud, I'm sure you can though, I have faith.

Ohhh...just so you know, HTLV-1 isn't Gallo's version of Montagnier's LAV / HIV, Gallo's H.I.V. was named HTLV-III, by Gallo. Now what cha got ?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
There are several logical (and technical) flaws, both with the original post in this thread, as well as with the theory of HIV being manmade.

To the best of my knowledge, Ted Turner (ex-husband of Jane Fonda), paid to have the original
"aids" virus (HIV), mutated in a secret genetic laboratory.
He , allegedly, is one of a group of powerful people who believe the worlds' population should
have been capped at least under 6 billion.
My understanding is the original 'aids virus' was weak, and would die upon exposure to air. So
Mr. Turner forked over the money for genetic manipulation (grafting of different things onto the original
strain), so that it would be more virulent.

Originally posted by Freedom of Thought

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
There are several logical (and technical) flaws, both with the original post in this thread, as well as with the theory of HIV being manmade.

To the best of my knowledge, Ted Turner (ex-husband of Jane Fonda), paid to have the original
"aids" virus (HIV), mutated in a secret genetic laboratory.
He , allegedly, is one of a group of powerful people who believe the worlds' population should
have been capped at least under 6 billion.
My understanding is the original 'aids virus' was weak, and would die upon exposure to air. So
Mr. Turner forked over the money for genetic manipulation (grafting of different things onto the original
strain), so that it would be more virulent.

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic and trying to be funny, or if you are seriously suggesting this as an origin of HIV.

Assuming you're serious, do you have any proof at all?

reply to post by alpha68


I have enjoyed the discourse between you and VenZonyDostupa. You are both very convincing orators.

My only problem or complaint is that there is no need to "talk down" to the followers of this thread.

Anyone that did not understand what you two were discussing would have already left the thread from boredom and lack of interest.

I and hundreds more members of this site probably do have medical dictionaries and do appreciate this type of civil intercourse.

May I suggest you both join the new ATS debates as you are both very interesting.

Carry on.

Originally posted by alpha68
First of all comrade, is that below your CONGO boy or not ? Couldn't be though ? Due to the fact that Dr. Diamond David Lee Ho had his grubby little mitts on Bantu tribe guy as well, whats uP with that ?
You said that "HO didn't handle both"...CORRECT ?

Please proofread this bit. I don't understand if you're asking me something or stating something, as the sentences are incomplete or lack subject-verb agreement. I truly do want to answer your questions, I just have to be able to understand you.

Can you please explain how Gallos retrovirus HTLV-1 would or could EVER be able to cause cancer if it (GALLOS RETROVIRUS) killed the cells it infected ? Keeping in mind of course, that not only does cancer not kill cells, it make cell grow, in-fact, it actually makes them grow T-O-O---W-E-L-L !

No problem. I would think a virologist (which you aren't, despite your claims) would know this. It's a very simple answer.

When a virus capable of becoming latent (such as HIV, HTLV, herpes) wants to remain hidden, it does so by inserting it's DNA into the human cell's genome. It doesn't produce any protein at this point, as it is latent, and thus doesn't produce an immune response. The risk of developing cancer arises because the virus's "machinery" for inserting it's DNA (polymerase) isn't exact, just as our own polymerase isn't exact. When an error occurs during insertion of the viral DNA, it can interrupt the sequence of a tumor suppressor gene (thus causing cancer) or interrupt growth-monitoring genes (thus allowing uncontrolled growth of the cells, the very definition of cancer).

There is absolutely NO cell killing involved in cancer I hope you know.

That's not true at all, actually. As a cancer grows, it can outpace it's own blood supply (despite secreting factors that create new vessels). The cancer can also occlude or strangle existing vessels. Both of these situations cause ischemia, which is cell death, due to lack of nutrients and oxygen to the tissue. This is a common finding in most cancers.

Also cancer always starts in one single cell as well, a viral attack would send many soldiers to attack a cell (s) and infect many cells as H.I.V. does, not just one wouldn't they ?

Again, not true. Most cancers arise through metaplasia (altered growth) and dysplasia (disordered growth) of a collection of cells, usually due to chronic injury (smoking in lung cancer, gastric reflux in esophageal cancer).

In the case of a virus, yes, it would infect many cells. This is how HPV causes cervical cancer. It infects cervical epithelium and causes metaplasia, then dysplasia, of the tissue. This is why a pap smear can detect early signs of cervical cancer: metaplastic and dysplastic cells are readily observed on the smear.

Then after your through let me know how that very same virus would or could kill CD-4 cells causing A.I.D.S ?

Again, no problem. It all has to do with a breakdown in CD4-mediated immunity. The first changes in cancer growth are aberrant or pathologic growth of a collection of cells. In a normally healthy individual, most (not all) instances of this are caught by circulating naive CD8 cells (through the MHC I system, which monitors for normal or abnormal expression of receptor proteins on cells). When these CD8 cells spot an abnormality, they have to be signaled by a CD4 cell before they can activate and kill the abnormal, cancerous cell. If you are deficient in CD4 cells (due to HIV/HTLV), you can't efficiently activate CD8 cells, thus your abnormal cell growth monitoring system is deficient. This is why you have an increased risk of cancer any time you have a breakdown in CD4 mediated immunity.

Ohhh...just so you know, HTLV-1 isn't Gallo's version of Montagnier's LAV / HIV, Gallo's H.I.V. was named HTLV-III, by Gallo. Now what cha got ?

You're confusing two terms. Prior to HIV being the conventional name, it was known as HTLV-III. Once HIV became more well know, well studied, and was clearly a discrete disease with a causative agent, it was named HIV and HTLV-III was thrown out. Since then, a a new HTLV-strain virus was discovered (early 2000s, I think?) and was named HTLV-III, simply because that was the next number in line.

reply to post by dizziedame


To be quite honest with you, I didn't even think that actually were any followers of this thread !

Even the actual person who started it isn't even here any longer.

reply to post by alpha68


Actually I come by everyday, to see how the debate is going between you guys. I started a vaccine thread a while back, and she managed to do the same thing. No one wanted to go to thread anymore. So I wasnt really surprised that this happened either.

I enjoy the information, but I wanted people to have the option to participate and thats hard to do, when the thread is full of medical terms that most cant understand. I think the overall message gets lost, and now I can chalk it up to yet another thread that has been "booked" to death, and everyone lost interest of my true intent.

There should be a limit to how much someone can add to a thread when disagreed with. I even went and looked around and you guys seem to do this often. Though I see both sides, your the one that keeps me coming back, because you add some comedy into it too.

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by alpha68

 

Actually I come by everyday, to see how the debate is going between you guys. I started a vaccine thread a while back, and she managed to do the same thing. No one wanted to go to thread anymore. So I wasnt really surprised that this happened either.

I enjoy the information, but I wanted people to have the option to participate and thats hard to do, when the thread is full of medical terms that most cant understand. I think the overall message gets lost, and now I can chalk it up to yet another thread that has been "booked" to death, and everyone lost interest of my true intent.

Ah, ok. So, we shouldn't be explain inherently scientific issues with scientific terms? You don't think science has any place in these discussions? Should I be calling HIV "that there tiny thing what infects the gays"?

If any term is confusing, feel free to look it up or even (gasp!) ask for clarification. It's not hard, and I'm MORE than happy to explain myself or my posts. All you have to do is ask.

There should be a limit to how much someone can add to a thread when disagreed with.

If you'll look back on previous threads involving alpha and I, you'll see my posts generally have stars and his/hers don't. This would suggest alpha is the one being "disagreed with". Regardless, why do you think it's okay to silence the other side? That's an awful, fascist attitude to have and smacks of reinforcing ignorance, rather than denying ignorance (you know, the whole POINT of this site).