I created AIDS to deliberately depopulate the earth- Dr Robert Gallo

reply to post by Rubinstein

Please reread the post OccamAssassin, you've misunderstood, nobody said there was a conspiracy with regard to keyboard layouts, it was used as an example as how society can get trapped with with a product that is hindering us; like a poor keyboard layout or vaccines

WRT the keyboards....My apologies.

I wonder about the comparison with vaccines though. What is the alternative to vaccines?

Genetically engineer the next generation of humans? I doubt the general population would accept such.

Do nothing and watch populations plummet due to mass outbreaks of dangerous diseases?

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

Please reread the post OccamAssassin, you've misunderstood, nobody said there was a conspiracy with regard to keyboard layouts, it was used as an example as how society can get trapped with with a product that is hindering us; like a poor keyboard layout or vaccines

WRT the keyboards....My apologies.

No probs

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

I wonder about the comparison with vaccines though. What is the alternative to vaccines?

A naturally healthy immune system, nothings better than that

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Do nothing and watch populations plummet due to mass outbreaks of dangerous diseases?

reply to post by Rubinstein


That is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous logic. So you're postulating that the HIV virus was "invented" as a means to get people to practice safe sex in order to depopulate Earth? Ignoring the fact that the EASIEST way to do this would be to promote safe sex? And the fact that conservative citizens and politicians are very much AGAINST promoting safe sex in favour of the baby-producing "abstinence"? And that's also completely ignoring the fact even if your insane idea WAS true, it would only SLOW population growth, not REDUCE the population

I know this is a conspiracy board but considering that most conspiracy theorists generally consider themselves open minded and informed, the fact that you are getting stars for posting such nonsense only serves to illustrate how ignorant and subject to confirmation bias some members really are. This is the sort of nonsense that makes conspiracy theorists look like a laughing stock that no one takes seriously.

reply to post by kn0wh0w


I agree. The Dr. can probably be blamed for many disgusting and ethically questionable research (even illegal, if some of the treaties regarding bio-weapons have been violated), in this instance I like, and applaud it not been removed from the video, his reply.

I prefer the previous theory regarding the harvesting of chimps livers in Africa as the "source" for the plague.

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


...who was it who said the Hillary Clinton was a practicing Witch...?

Assuming yours is a serious post john_bmth, I'll help you out here

john_bmth "So you're postulating that the HIV virus was "invented" as a means to get people to practice safe sex in order to depopulate Earth?

Ignoring the fact that the EASIEST way to do this would be to promote safe sex?"

Your statement makes no sense, try reading it again. You've disagreed with me, but then said that the easiest way to depopulate the Earth is by encouraging people to practice 'safe sex'. One promotes safe sex by telling people about 'risks', such as HIV/AIDs etc. You've actually agreed with me but without realizing it.


john_bmth "And that's also completely ignoring the fact even if your insane idea WAS true, it would only SLOW population growth, not REDUCE the population

"

You need to look up what 'population growth' is, you meant to say 'birth rate' i.e. "it would only SLOW *birth rate*". More 'safe sex' = lower birth rate. If they reduce the birth rate to below the death rate, then they start to reduce the population.

john_bmth "I know this is a conspiracy board but considering that most conspiracy theorists generally consider themselves open minded and informed, the fact that you are getting stars for posting such nonsense only serves to illustrate how ignorant and subject to confirmation bias some members really are. This is the sort of nonsense that makes conspiracy theorists look like a laughing stock that no one takes seriously."

Either you're having a laugh or are very confused on this; hard to tell which. I've given you the benefit of the doubt with a serious response

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Rubinstein

 

That is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous logic. So you're postulating that the HIV virus was "invented" as a means to get people to practice safe sex in order to depopulate Earth?

Ignoring the fact that the EASIEST way to do this would be to promote safe sex? And the fact that conservative citizens and politicians are very much AGAINST promoting safe sex in favour of the baby-producing "abstinence"? And that's also completely ignoring the fact even if your insane idea WAS true, it would only SLOW population growth, not REDUCE the population

I know this is a conspiracy board but considering that most conspiracy theorists generally consider themselves open minded and informed, the fact that you are getting stars for posting such nonsense only serves to illustrate how ignorant and subject to confirmation bias some members really are. This is the sort of nonsense that makes conspiracy theorists look like a laughing stock that no one takes seriously.

edit on 10-6-2012 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Rubinstein
Your statement makes no sense, try reading it again. You've said that the easiest way to depopulate the Earth is by encouraging people to practice 'safe sex'. One promotes safe sex by telling people about 'risks', such as HIV/AIDs etc. You've actually agreed with me but without realizing it.

No. You're postulating that they have gone to the bother of creating a deadly virus and unleashing it into the wild just to teach kids about safe sex. That's absurd on multiple levels. There is absolutely no need for that, there's more than enough compelling reasons to teach practice safe sex without some grand conspiracy. And for how many people is the primary reason of practising safe sex to avoid HIV?

"Sure, we could teach them safe sex to avoid the usual STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but you know what would really hit it home? If we engineered a deadly, incurable virus to scare them into using condoms"

You need to look up what 'population growth' is, you meant to say 'birth rate' i.e. "it would only SLOW *birth rate*". More 'safe sex' = lower birth rate. If they reduce the birth rate to below the death rate, then they start to reduce the population.

Safe sex does not equal no children. It will not depopulate Earth Funny how countries that have access to condoms are still growing in population.

"Hey, you know that super evil virus we created to teach people about safe sex? How about we instead make it not deadly, but make it highly infectious and turn people infertile. That'd do the job much better for considerably less work, right?"

"Nah, let's go with the safe sex route, out logic is bullet proof"

"Ok, well meet me half way: can't it kill them and make them infertile?"

"Nah. The HIV -> safe sex plan is more than adequate"

"Well seeing as we're creating a deadly virus anyway, why don't we just use that to depopulate Earth?"

"Nope"

Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up. Oh, except you just have...

Originally posted by john_bmth
No. You're postulating that they have gone to the bother of creating a deadly virus and unleashing it into the wild just to teach kids about safe sex. That's absurd on multiple levels. There is absolutely no need for that, there's more than enough compelling reasons to teach practice safe sex without some grand conspiracy. And for how many people is the primary reason of practising safe sex to avoid HIV?

You don't need 'Safe Sex' if there aren't scary STD's such as HIV and Hep C going around. They slip them in the vaccines as 'proof' that these diseases are being spread by unsafe sex. Also the HIV is very handy as it kills people off too further reducing the population.

Originally posted by john_bmth
"Safe sex does not equal no children. It will not depopulate Earth

Funny how countries that have access to condoms are still growing in population. "

As I said, 'safe sex' reduces the 'birth rate', you don't seem to have a good understanding of what that means. Nobody said it equals no children. Condoms will reduce the 'birth rate', but if the 'birth rate' is still higher than the 'death rate' the population will still grow. I'd strongly recommend you think carefully about what each of these terms you're using means in the sense of Population Dynamics.

Originally posted by john_bmth
"Hey, you know that super evil virus we created to teach people about safe sex? How about we instead make it not deadly, but make it highly infectious and turn people infertile. That'd do the job much better for considerably less work, right?"

"Nah, let's go with the safe sex route, out logic is bullet proof"

"Ok, well meet me half way: can't it kill them and make them infertile?"

"Nah. The HIV -> safe sex plan is more than adequate"

AIDS/HIV did fail overall, now fertility is being targeted instead. That's what the Swine Flu and HPV vaccines are for. The Swine Flu vaccine contains Polysorbate 80 which damages developing ovaries (when injected directly through the blood-brain barrier)

Originally posted by Rubinstein
You don't need 'Safe Sex' if you don't have scary STD's such as HIV and Hep C. They slip them in the vaccines as 'proof' that these diseases are being spread by unsafe sex. Also the HIV is very handy as it kills people off too further reducing the population.

Erm... there's enough STDs and reasons such as unwanted pregnancies to teach safe sex without some ridiculous bio-engineered boogie man.

I ask you again: do you honestly believe that the majority of people practice safe sex to avoid catching HIV?

As I said, 'safe sex' reducing the 'birth rate', you don't seem to have a good understanding of what that means. Nobody said it equals no children. Condoms will reduce the 'birth rate', but if the 'birth rate' is still higher than the 'death rate' the population will still grow. I'd strongly recommend you think carefully about what each of these terms you're using means in the sense of Population Dynamics.

Reducing birth rate is not the same as reducing the population. Again, show me the correlation between population decline and the teaching of safe sex.

AIDS/HIV did fail overall, now fertility is being targeted instead.

Oh really? Why's that, because it didn't scare enough people into practising safe sex? Funny that, considering the plan is logically bankrupt and utterly ridiculous.Oh, and that you made it all up.

That's what the Swine Flu and HPV vaccines are for. The Swine Flu vaccine contains Polysorbate 80 which damages developing ovaries (when injected directly through the blood-brain barrier

More unsubstantiated assertions So now you get to magically ascribe bioengineering and population control to any disease that occurs? I guess seeing as we're walking down the "make it up as you go along" road, anything is possible

Originally posted by john_bmth
Erm... there's enough STDs and reasons such as unwanted pregnancies to teach safe sex without some ridiculous bio-engineered boogie man.

Only if we're told that there are, but they needed a monster of an STD, one much scary than all of the others. They engineered it and placed in some vaccines.

Originally posted by john_bmth
I ask you again: do you honestly believe that the majority of people practice safe sex to avoid catching HIV?

It is a factor especially in countries with high rates of HIV, but as I said, overall HIV failed; it takes too long to kill.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Reducing birth rate is not the same as reducing the population. Again, show me the correlation between population decline and the teaching of safe sex.

If you're not interested in looking up the terms that you're using, I can't spend much longer answering your posts; you're using terms which you don't know the meaning of. (Mathematician here by the way)

Population Growth/Decline is commonly calculated using Birth Rate, Mortality Rate and Migration Rate. It's an equation with Population Growth/Decline on one side of the = and Birth Rate, Mortality Rate and Migration Rate on the other side, I'm not hear to teach Maths though.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Oh really? Why's that, because it didn't scare enough people into practising safe sex? Funny that, considering the plan is logically bankrupt and utterly ridiculous.Oh, and that you made it all up.

As Dr. Eric Pianka said when discussing how to eliminate 90% of the world's population to solve the 'population crisis'. "AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow."

Originally posted by john_bmth
More unsubstantiated assertions

So now you get to magically ascribe bioengineering and population control to any disease that occurs? I guess seeing as we're walking down the "make it up as you go along" road, anything is possible

Look into the Swine Flu Vaccine and Polysorbate 80 if you wish, however I can't spend any more time with you as you're acting childishly and don't have an open mind on the topic.

"Polysorbate 80 In Swine Flu Vaccines = Infertility In Humans"
organichealthadviser.com...

Originally posted by Rubinstein

Only if we're told that there are, but they needed a monster of an STD, one much scary than all of the others. They engineered it and placed in some vaccines.

You still haven't answered WHY they need a "monster STD" since the primary motivation for using condoms is NOT to avoid HIV Show me the evidence that people's primary motivation for using contraception is to avoid AIDS. Actually, don't bother, I'm not going to reply to any more of your posts, I have better things to do with my time than argue with people who make up completely unfounded statements that are utterly devoid of logic and evidence.

It is a factor especially in countries with high rates of HIV, but as I said, overall HIV failed; it takes too long to kill.

What? So now you're saying that people in countries with high HIV rates use condoms to avoid catching (deadly) HIV so that they can reduce the population? Yet again, your logic is thoroughly faulty. If there's a deadly STD rampant among a population, why exactly would you want to teach them safe sex if your goal is to reduce population? And what's all this "takes too long to kill" business about? You clearly stated that the purpose of HIV was to scare people into practising safe sex. Get your story straight!

If you're not interested in looking up the terms that you're using, I can't spend much longer answering your posts. You're confused with their meaning.

Population Growth/Decline is commonly calculated using Birth Rate, Mortality Rate and Migration Rate. It's an equation with Population Growth/Decline on one side of the = and Birth Rate, Mortality Rate and Migration Rate on the other side, I'm not hear to teach Maths though.

*Yawn* ducking the issue again. Show me the positive correlation between countries that practice safe sex and a reduction in their population growth.

Originally posted by john_bmth
As Dr. Eric Pianka said when discussing how to eliminate 90% of the world's population to solve the 'population crisis'. "AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow."

You said that the idea behind the HIV virus was to scare people into practising safe sex You're not even consistent with your made up assertions.

syrinx high priest said:

Originally posted
by syrinx high priest
this makes no sense on a very simple level. the only way to depopulate the earth is with an airborne agent with a high infection rate and a short gestation time that causes death quickly or sterility

people with aids can still reproduce right ?

To which you replied:

Originally posted by Rubinstein

If everyone's terrified of catching AIDS then no, the idea is they'll be scared of having unprotected sex, so there will be less children born. You put HIV in their vaccines to prove it's in their community, then you give them propaganda about how to avoid HIV, saying it came from unprotected sex

So which is it? HIV was created to be deadly but failed because "it took too long to kill" ( syrinx high priest's argument kills that one dead in the water) or to "scare people into practising safe sex" (which again is logically bankrupt seeing that is not the primary motivation for people practising safe sex)?

Look into the Swine Flu Vaccine and Polysorbate 80 if you wish, however I can't spend any more time with you as you're acting childish and don't seem to have an open mind on this topic.

"Polysorbate 80 In Swine Flu Vaccines = Infertility In Humans"
organichealthadviser.com...

Surprise surprise, you haven't answered my question

I'm done with this discussion. If you can't even get your story straight or answer some very clear questions then this fool's errand will go on and on ad infinitum. How many posts do I have to make iterating the same questions in order to get some solid answers?

You appear to be trolling here, none of what you're saying holds up, I'm sure I don't need to explain it to anyone else who's reading the thread. I can't justify spending more time on this as I'm trying to run a business here

reply to post by john_bmth

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by wewillnotcomply666

 

In that case Dr Roberto Gallo...you have epically failed it hasn't killed enough people to depopulate quite as effectively as say an AIRBORN virus would.

Geez if this is what we're contending with lolz people, we need not fear the eugenists. They are pretty dumb it would seem.

Or smarter than you. Airborn virus is uncontainable/unavoidable. Speed = irreversible.

Slow, deadly, and controlled rules the day, unless they wanted to kill everyone including themselves. Which would be counter-intuitive to their purpose of depopulation to begin with... sooooooooooooooo

Yeah, I'd say they are pretty bright.


On topic, I saw this documentary about AID's and it's origins stemming from a science lab making Polo vaccines in the 40's from monkeys in the congo.... They even interviewed the lead scientist and the rest who would accept to be interviewed/the remaining people who are still alive, who made it(aids), who confessed to making it by mistake....

It's no mystery where aids came from... just undereducated fables are more popular than the truth.

Sorry, the name of the documentary slips my mind as I saw it years ago... I'll see if I can dig it up, and post a vid link if I can find one.


*edit* I found the video.

The guy's name was Dr. Hilary Koprowski.
blip.tv...

The full program is 1:29 minutes, but the longest version I was able to find is only 45 minutes. But this is for sure sure the program I was talking about.

reply to post by Laokin


Who admitted to making the virus?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Laokin

 

Who admitted to making the virus?

Dr. Koprowski in a round about way. He didn't deny the research, and admitted doing it and administering the vaccine to the native's...

He claims that he never used chimps in his trials, although video evidence/logs says otherwise.

It's like admitting to pulling the trigger, but denying the bullets were real and claiming they were just "blanks."

The evidence tells you they weren't blanks, and he admits to pulling the trigger.

To any sensible human, that's admission.

I'm not saying it was done on purpose, I am saying it happened and he himself acknowledged his role in the research.

Timeline, origin of HIV, first emergence in humans, from various studies...

1884 and 1924 - origin of HIV according to a 2008 study.
Late 19th–early 20th century, various studies
1908 - HIV group M starts to spread
1908 - according to a University of Arizona study
1931 plus or minus 15 years - origin of HIV according to a 2000 study.
1937 - Robert Gallo born.
1940s to early 1950s - origin of HIV according to a 1998 study
1940, 1945 - from a 2003 study by Dr Vandamme
1959 - HIV found in a sample from David Carr
1959 - HIV found in sample from Congolese man
1959 - Robert Gallo earns a degree in Biology in 1959 from Providence College
1960 - HIV found in a lymph node sample taken in 1960 from an adult female
1960's - Robert Gallo starts a laboratory.

Conclusive evidence that Gallo has a time machine and went back in time to spread HIV.
What more do you need to know.

References -
avert.org
sciencemag
wikipedia
berkeley

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


Either provide a transcript or shut the hell up yourself.

Just felt like saying it.

You should watch it and post some thoughts instead of just a two-liner and the video itself.

reply to post by Laokin


No he didn't:

British journalist Edward Hooper publicized a hypothesis that AIDS was inadvertently caused in the late 1950s in the Belgian Congo by Koprowski's research into a polio vaccine. The OPV AIDS hypothesis has been widely rejected by the scientific community.[5] The journal Science wrote of Hooper's claims, "...it can be stated with almost complete certainty that the large polio vaccine trial... was not the origin of AIDS."[6] Koprowski also rejected the claim, although he has declined to sue Hooper. In a separate case, he won a clarification[7] and $1 in monetary damages[8] in a defamation action against Rolling Stone, which had published an article making similar allegations.[9] A concurrent defamation lawsuit that Koprowski brought against the Associated Press was settled several years later, but the terms were not publicly disclosed.[8]
Koprowski's original reports from 1960–61 detailing part of his vaccination campaign in the Belgian Congo are available on-line from the World Health Organization.[10][11][12]

reply to post by wewillnotcomply666


well if it is true that he created aids to depopulate the earth, he failed.

Now, lets say he did create it (which i highly doubt).

Would it not be clever to now release the cure for it, and make billions!!

If he is a clever man, and this whole fantasy is true, that would be the smart thing to do.

vvv