trkeske at aol.com
Wed Feb 4 21:50:07 EST 1998
Here we go again- the Boston Globe reported today that a frozen
blood sample collected in 1959 from an African man in the
Belgian Congo yielded evidence of the AIDS virus.
I already described, in the case of an English sailor who also
supposedly had AIDS in 1959, why this almost certainly
cannot be true. The point still keeps coming up, so I'll
briefly restate the argument.
The AIDS epidemic has shown a characteristic annual doubling
pattern during its early phases. I previously cited data showing
that this had been true for gay men, and is now also shown in
other groups, such as women and teenagers.
It is also a supposition that makes intuitive sense. The only
supposition necessary for an annual doubling is for each infected
person, on average, to infect one other person in the course of a
full year. Obviously, promiscuous people, prostitutes,
contaminated blood, could all infect more people FAR more
Also, we are talking about a period of time when no one even
knew AIDS to exist. There was no "safe sex", no testing to
know who was infected. The infection rate logically should
have been even greater, under such circumstances. These factors
would have REMAINED true, right up until the time that we
new that we were facing a new virus.
Therefore, it is nothing dramatic to assume an annual doubling-
this is a CONSERVATIVE assumption. Yet, the effects of
this supposition are dramatic. If you had even one person
infected with HIV in 1950, you would have had a full billion
infections by 1980, when we first became aware of AIDS.
Obviously, we had no where near a billion infections yet,
in 1980. Therefore, in all probability, there was no one with
AIDS in 1950, at all.
We didn't even know that we had a new problem in 1979,
yet in a few years time, it spread around the world, and
became a major cause of death. It would be a quite
peculiar pattern, for a virus to linger and loll around so
inconspicuously for decades, then suddenly take off like
Again, there is a curious contradiction supported by the
camp that chooses to contend that everything is fine,
and nothing is suspicious.
When we ask why there is so much heterosexual AIDS
in Africa, but so little in America, we are assured that this
is not surprising at all. There is so much heterosexual
promiscuity in Africa, well OF COURSE it spreads very
Yet, when we ask why AIDS would linger in the background
for decades in Africa, not spreading enough
to be noticeable, we are assured that this is not surprising,
either. AIDS isn't a virus that spreads easily.
Which is it? The African heterosexual are "very promiscuous",
yet the virus lingers for decades without spreading enough
for us even to notice?
What does it mean, then, when we are told the stories of
frozen blood indicating that AIDS existed in the
My opinion is that it means we are being told a deliberate
lie, some calculated misinformation.
In the past few weeks there have been some other Boston
Globe articles revealing past CIA and Pentagon misinformation,
that they apparently now, decades later, feel comfortable to
One story revealed a scheme, using falsified
evidence, to blame any possible Apollo mission failure on
sabotage by Castro. Another article revealed a scheme to
falsify a report that Cuba had attacked an OAS member,
in the event that we needed a pretext to invade Cuba, during
the Cold War tensions.
Yet, the Globe will turn around and act like some gaynet
members- shocked, totally shocked, that anyone could be
so low-minded as to believe in silly "conspiracy theories".
Their editorials pontificate that maybe it is because of an
excessive tendency of the government to slap "Top Secret"
on things that don't need really to be "Top Secret", that causes
the mistrust. It never seems to occur to them that it is a
long-term, consistent pattern of shameless government
lying, mindlessly parroted by an obedient press, that causes
The insincerity is evident also in the Globe article about
the 1959 Belgian Congo AIDS case. They admit that there
is also a theory about vaccines linked to emergence of AIDS,
but pretend that it is a matter of "unsterile needles".
They know perfectly well that "unsterile needles" is hardly
the crux of matter, concerning the vaccines. It is the significant
possibility that AIDS was a laboratory product, contaminating
the vaccine itself, directly.
You have to choose where to put your faith, because you
are going to be confronted with conflicting data in affairs
like these. It is like Clinton's supposed sexual affairs-
you know that SOMEONE is lying- whom do you trust?
Excuse me, but once a government tells big lies and
gets caught at it, and once that a government shows
a hostility against a minority that can reach
blood-chilling levels, it has forfeited the right of expectation
to trust, virtually ever again. That is why it is such a serious
thing, for a government to tell a shameless lie to the public.
That is why it is such a serious thing for Newt Gingrich to
be affectionately putting his arm around Lou Sheldon,
who has only said that he would put gays and AIDS
victims in camps.
Excuse me, but I choose to put my trust in the knowledge that
one AIDS case in 1950 means a billion by 1980. From a basis
in data and assumptions so firm as to be virtually above denial,
it then becomes an exercise in pure logic.
You can't falsify pure logic that states all its assumptions
explicitly, and is openly on display for the world to see.
You CAN falsify lab results as easily as you can falsify
"incontrovertible proof" of nonexistent atrocities by Castro.
The government and the press can tell me all about finding
AIDS as early as the Piltdown Man, as well. I still won't
be buying it.
More information about the Microbio