Ed Posted December 11, 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8693994530127513397&q=Origins+of+AIDS 'Since first being broadcast in 2003 the Origins Of Aids has yet to be aired on UK television. Despite winning many awards and being hotly debated the reason is more than likely connected to the barrage of legal assaults made on Channel 4 by Dr Koprowski, who it is theorized caused the Aids epidemic during 1950s trials of an experimental polio vaccine in Africa. This campaign involved 1 million people, and was questioned by the World Health Organization. Doc-Film-Net has also been threatened with legal action for showing this important film. As a result we are no longer able to make this film available ourselves' 0 Share this post Link to post
ducon Posted December 11, 2006 What? One million persons infected and noone saw it, noone else was infected during 30 years? O_o Are there proofs or is it another conspiration quack? 0 Share this post Link to post
Quasar Posted December 11, 2006 Sounds stupid to me. It's thought in the mainstream that HIV is simply a strain of SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which has existed in the wild for pretty much as long as we've known about viruses. How it made the jump to humans is a matter of your imagination, although the practice by females of certain African tribes of putting soil urinated on by primates into their vaginas is currently highly suspect. As a retrovirus, HIV is capable of evolving in minimal time, rendering it capable of crossing species boundaries (see also Feline Immunodeficiency Virus), and of becoming immune to almost anything thrown at it in due time (see news of man for whom common AIDS medication does little, and resulting fear his new strain will spread). The idea that HIV must have been engineered by humans to be so "perfect" is quite a ridiculous misconception. It is simply the end result of billions of years of viral evolution; an efficient and well-armed predator, so to speak. 0 Share this post Link to post
Dr. Zin Posted December 11, 2006 Actually, SIV transmission is more likely to come from the food known as bush meat, a common practice of hunting non-game species in many parts of Africa where the big game has been exhausted. Primates are included under the umbrella of bush meat, and it is interesting to note that the hypothesized origin date of HIV coincides with the European abandonment of African colonies, and the shortages that followed. It would be fairly simple for someone with a small laceration on their hand to have contact with infected blood while butchering a primate. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 11, 2006 Quasar said:the practice by females of certain African tribes of putting soil urinated on by primates into their vaginas is currently highly suspect.o_O 0 Share this post Link to post
Ed Posted December 11, 2006 Dr. Zin said:It would be fairly simple for someone with a small laceration on their hand to have contact with infected blood while butchering a primate. 0 Share this post Link to post
Sharessa Posted December 11, 2006 Quasar said:How it made the jump to humans is a matter of your imagination, although the practice by females of certain African tribes of putting soil urinated on by primates into their vaginas is currently highly suspect. Well I guess it's better than CENTIPEDES IN THE VAGINA 0 Share this post Link to post
fraggle Posted December 11, 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/aids/poliovac-hiv-aids-qa.htm#9 9. Is there any evidence that supports the theory that HIV was introduced by an experimental oral polio vaccine? The theory relies almost exclusively on the coincidental appearance of the earliest documented cases of AIDS near some of the sites where the vaccine was tested in Central Africa. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 11, 2006 HIV was created by the US government to use on anyone who attempts to reveal the truth about the moon landing hoax. 0 Share this post Link to post
ultdoomer Posted December 11, 2006 Quasar said:the practice by females of certain African tribes of putting soil urinated on by primates into their vaginas I just have to ask: What's the point of doing this? 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted December 11, 2006 ultdoomer said: I just have to ask: What's the point of doing this? I just have to ask: You already took it for granted? Did Quasar post some reasonable references somewhere or have you read a book about "vaginal soiling practices in Africa"? 0 Share this post Link to post
Raikoh_Minamoto Posted December 11, 2006 HIV was created by Jack Thompson, a.k.a. Satan. Jack is also responsible for the creation of Baten Kaitos (which was a horrible travesty indeed), the eighties (need I explain?), the fall of the Roman Empire (he created malaria, too), and the cancellation of Gilligan's Island. Quasar said: The idea that HIV must have been engineered by humans to be so "perfect" is quite a ridiculous misconception. It is simply the end result of billions of years of viral evolution; an efficient and well-armed predator, so to speak. Looks like someone's never read The Andromeda Strain. Basically, the book makes several concepts clear, one of which goes something like this: If man is killed by a virus, then both are poorly adapted*. If a virus is too much of an "efficient and well-armed predator", then it will run out of hosts to impregnate (see asterisk comments below if you don't understand), and its species will be unable to reproduce. This is very bad (for the virus). *Of course, it's quite possible that man and virus cannot co-exist like, say, the living creatures of a rainforest. Because viruses technically are not alive**, it is possible that the two cannot "tune in (I use this term very, very loosely)" to each other's endagering like wolves and deer can. **It is a common misconception that viruses are alive; this could not be farther from the truth. While they do reproduce, they are really little more than a few strands of incomplete genetic code (it's missing the bit about asexual reproduction), encased in a protein coat. When a cell absorbs one (cells absorb proteins to carry out their functions, they cannot tell the difference), it replaces some of the cell's DNA with its own, and uses the cell to create more viruses until it bursts. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted December 11, 2006 Raikoh_Minamoto said: It is a common misconception that viruses are alive; Viruses are an interesting insight into the concept and constitution of what we call life. I'd say they are not "fully fleshed out living stuff", but seem to be part way there. 0 Share this post Link to post
Quasar Posted December 11, 2006 Raikoh_Minamoto said:If man is killed by a virus, then both are poorly adapted*. If a virus is too much of an "efficient and well-armed predator", then it will run out of hosts to impregnate (see asterisk comments below if you don't understand), and its species will be unable to reproduce. This is very bad (for the virus). HIV doesn't kill fast enough to stop reproduction, although when the infection is passed to the offspring it will usually be fatal before that offspring reaches maturity (though with modern medications this is not necessarily the case). Also, there appears to already be an HIV resistance gene in the human genome. It is unfortunately most prevalent amongst Europeans, who are already the least-afflicted population due to social factors. This also combines with its ability to easily hop species. If it killed off all humans, it would very likely simply adapt to yet another host. It has done this many times already. Raikoh_Minamoto said:**It is a common misconception that viruses are alive; this could not be farther from the truth. While they do reproduce, they are really little more than a few strands of incomplete genetic code (it's missing the bit about asexual reproduction), encased in a protein coat. When a cell absorbs one (cells absorb proteins to carry out their functions, they cannot tell the difference), it replaces some of the cell's DNA with its own, and uses the cell to create more viruses until it bursts. I myself didn't refer to the virus as "alive" although if you do your reading you'll notice that this is an open question in science and always will be. It is difficult to exactly define what is or is not life. Viruses fit several of the traditional criteria for life while failing some others. Does this mean they're not life, or that our definition of life is too strict? It is an argument over definitions. Viruses ARE subject to evolution, however. The same systems of mutation and natural selection apply to them in full, only on a nanoscopic scale. 0 Share this post Link to post
Gokuma Posted December 12, 2006 http://www.worldnewsstand.net/health/aids.htm 0 Share this post Link to post
baronofhell Posted December 24, 2006 Oh come on!!! Everyone knows AIDS was created by GOD as a counter to homosexuality and sex out of wedlock!!! lol 0 Share this post Link to post
Koko Ricky Posted December 24, 2006 Someimtes I want to give a shit about aids, but thnen I remember that I'm celibate. I like George Carlin's persepctive on AIDS, which is that it was created by the Earth to help keep us in check. 0 Share this post Link to post
deathbringer Posted December 27, 2006 LUMBERJACKS FUCKING MONKEYS Somebody had to say it! 0 Share this post Link to post