AIDS: Man-made?

Phil jorge2 at
Sat Feb 7 13:40:03 EST 1998

TRKeske wrote:
> AIDS: A U.S.- Made Monster?
> I am reposting an article that can also be views on the web at:
> I am not necessarily endorsing everything in this essay, although I
> think that does raise some interesting possibilities.  I welcome any
> intelligent critique (if internet newsgroups can remember what that is).
> If there is truly worthwhile rebuttal, I hope to see it in the form of
> some in-depth technical discussion.   I'm merely a layman, and will
> be unimpressed by emotional outbursts- it you've got a point, please
> support it with something equally concrete and specific.
> Tom Keske
> Boston, Mass.
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> AIDS: A U.S.-Made Monster
> In an extensive article in the Summer-Autumn 1990 issue of Top
> Secret, Prof J. Segal and Dr. L. Segal outline their theory that
> AIDS is a man-made disease,  originating at Pentagon
> bacteriological warfare labs at Fort Detrick,  Maryland.
> Top Secret is the international edition of the German magazine
> Geheim and is considered by many to be a sister publication to
> the American Covert Action Information Bulletin (CAIB). In fact,
> Top Secret carries the Naming Names column, which CAIB is prevented
>  from doing by the American government, and which names CIA agents
> in different locations in the world. The article, named AIDS:
> US-Made Monster and subtitled AIDS - its Nature and its Origins, is
> lengthy, has a lot of professional terminology and is dotted with
> footnotes.
> The fatal weakening of the immune system which has given AIDS
> its name  (Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome), write the Segals,
> has been traced back  to a destruction or a functional failure of the
> T4-lymphocytes, also called  'helper cells', which play a
> regulatory role in the production of antibodies in the immune
> system. In the course of the illness, the number of functional
> T4- cells is reduced greatly so that new anti-bodies cannot be
> produced and  the defenseless patient remains exposed to a range
> of infections that under other circumstances would have been
> harmless.
> Most AIDS patients die from opportunistic infections rather than
> from the AIDS virus itself. The initial  infection is characterized
> by diarrhea, erysipelas and intermittent fever. An  apparent
> recovery follows after 2-3 weeks, and in many cases the patient
> remains without symptoms and  functions normally for years.
> Occasionally a  swelling of the lymph glands, which does not
> affect the patient's well-being,  can be observed.
> After several years, the pre-AIDS stage, known as ARC
> (Aids-Related Complex) sets in. This stage includes disorders
> in the digestive  tract, kidneys and lungs. In most cases it
> develops into full-blown AIDS in  about a year, at which point
> opportunistic illnesses occur. Parallel to this syndrome, disorders
> in various organ systems occur, the most severe in the brain,
> the symptoms of which range from motoric disorders to severe
> dementia and death.
> This set of symptoms, say the Segals, is identical in every detail
> with the Visna sickness which occurs in sheep, mainly in Iceland.
> (Visna means tiredness in Icelandic). However, the visna virus is
> not pathogenic for  human beings.  The Segals note that despite
> the fact that AIDS is transmitted  only through sexual intercourse,
> blood transfusions and non-sterile hypodermic needles, the
> infection has spread dramatically.
> During the first few years after its discovery, the number of AIDS
> patients doubled every six months, and is still doubling every 12
> months now though numerous measures have been taken against it.
> Based on these figures, it is estimated that in the US, which had
> 120,000 cases of AIDS at the end of 1988, 900,000 people will have
> AIDS or will have died of it by the end of 1991. It is also
> estimated that the number of people infected is at least ten times
> the number of those suffering from an acute case of AIDS.
> That in the year 1995 there will be between 10-14 million cases
> of AIDS and an additional 100 million people infected, 80 percent
> of them in the US, while a possible vaccination will not be
> available before 1995 by the most optimistic estimates.
> Even when such vaccination becomes available, it will not help
> those already infected.  These and following figures have been
> reached at by several different mainstream sources, such as the
> US Surgeon General and the Chief of the medical services of the
> US Army. AIDS does not merely bring certain dangers with it
> is clearly a programmed catastrophe for the human race, whose
> magnitude is comparable only with that of a nuclear war, say the
> Segals.  They later explain what they mean by programmed,
> showing that the virus was produced by humans, namely
> Dr. Robert Gallo of the Bethesda Cancer Research Center in
> Maryland.
> When proceeding to prove their claims, the Segals are careful
> to note that: We have given preference to the investigative
> results of highly renowned laboratories, whose objective contents
> cannot be doubted. We must emphasize, in this connection, that
> we do not know of any findings that have been published in
> professional journals that contradict our hypotheses.
> The first KNOWN cases of AIDS occurred in New York in 1979.
> The first  DESCRIBED cases were in California in 1979. The virus
> was isolated in Paris in May 1983, taken from a French homosexual
> who had returned home ill from a trip to the East Coast of the US.
> One year later, Robert Gallo and his co-workers at the Bethesda
> Cancer Research Center published their discovery of the same
> virus, which is cytotoxic. ( i.e poisonous to cells ).  Shortly after
> publishing his discovery, Gallo stated to newspapers that the virus
> had developed by a natural process from the Human Adult
> Leukemia virus, HTLV-1, which he had previously discovered.
> However, this claim was not published in professional
> publications, and soon after, Alizon and Montagnier, two
> researchers of the Pasteur Institute in Paris published charts of
> HTLV-1 and HIV, showing that the viruses had basically different
> structures. They also declared categorically that they knew of no
> natural process by which one of these two forms could have evolved
> into the other.
> According to the professional science magazine, the fall 1984
> annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement
> of Science (AAAS), was almost entirely devoted to the question of:
> to what extent new pathogenic agents could be produced via human
> manipulation of genes.  According to the Segals,  AIDS was
> practically the sole topic of discussion.
> The Segals discuss the findings of Gonda et al, who compared
> the HIV, visna and other closely-related viruses and found that
> the visna virus is the most similar to HIV. The two were, in
> fact, 60% identical in 1986.
> According to findings of the Hahn group, the mutation rate of
> the HIV virus was about a million times higher than that of
> similar viruses, and that on the average a 10% alteration took
> place every two years. That would mean that in 1984, the
> difference between HIV and visna would have been only 30%,
> in 1982- 20%, 10% in 1980 and zero in 1978. This means, say
> the Segals, that at this time visna viruses changed into HIV,
> receiving at the same time the ability to become parasites in
> human T4-cells and the high genetic instability that is not
> known in other retroviruses.
> This is also consistent with the fact that the first cases of
> AIDS appeared about one year later, in the spring of 1979.
> In this comparison of the genomes of visna and HIV, add
> the Segals, Coffin hit upon a remarkable feature. The env
> (envelope) area of the HIV genome, which  encodes the
> envelope proteins which help the virus to attach itself to
> the host cell, is about 300 nucleotides longer than the same
> area in visna. This behaviour suggests that an additional piece
> has been inserted into the genomes of the visna virus, a piece
> that alters the envelope proteins and enables them to
> bind themselves to the T4-receptors.
> ALIEN BODY, which does not match the rest of the system
> biochemically.  The above mentioned work by Gonda et al shows
> that the HIV virus has a section of about 300 nucleotides,
> which does not exist in the visna virus.  That length
> corresponds with what Coffin described. That section is
> particularly unstable, which indicates that it is an alien
> object.  According to the Segals, it originates in an HTLV-1
> genome, (discovered by Gallo-ED) for the likelihood of an
> accidental occurrence in HIV of a genome sequence 60%
> identical with a section of the HTLV-1 that is 300 nucleotides
> in length is zero.
> Since the visna virus is incapable of attaching gitself to human
> T4 receptors, it must have been the transfer of the HTLV-1 genome
> section which gave visna the capability to do so. In other words,
> the addition of HTLV-1 to visna made the HIV virus. In addition,
> the high mutation rate of the HIV genome has been explained
> by another scientific team, Chandra et al, by the fact that it is
> a combination of two genome parts which are alien to each
> other BY ARTIFICIAL MEANS rather than by a natural
> process of evolution, because this process would have
> immediately eliminated, through natural selection,
> systems that are so replete with disorders.
> These are the facts of the case, say the Segals.  HIV is
> essentially a visna virus which carries an additional protein
> monomer of HTLV-1 that has an epitope capable of bonding
> with T4 receptors. Neither Alizon and Montagnier nor any other
> biologist know of any natural mechanism that would make it
> possible for the epitope to be transferred from HTLV-1 to the
> visna virus.
> For this reason we can come to only one conclusion: that this gene
> combination arose by artificial means, through gene manipulation.
> The construction of a recombinant virus by means of gene
> manipulation is  extraordinarily expensive, and it requires a
> large number of highly qualified  personnel, complicated
> equipment and expensive high security laboratories.
> Moreover, the product would have no commercial value.  Who,
> then, ask the Segals, would have provided the resources for
> a type of  research that was  aimed solely at the production of a
> new disease that would be deadly to human beings?
> The English sociologist Allistair Hay (as well as Paxman et al
> in A  Higher Form of Killing-ED), published a document whose
> authenticity has been confirmed by the US Congress, showing
> that a representative of the Pentagon requested in 1969 additional
> funding for biological warfare research. The intention was to
> create, within the next ten years, a new virus that would
> not be susceptible to the immune system, so that the afflicted
> patient would not be able to develop any defense against it.
> Ten years later, in the spring of 1979, the first cases of
> AIDS appeared in New York.
> Thus began a phase of frantic experimentation, say the Segals.
> One group was working on trying to cause animal pathogens to
> adapt themselves to life in human beings. This was done under
> the cover of searching for a cure  for cancer. The race was won by
> Gallo, who described his findings in 1975.
> A year later, Gallo described gene manipulations he was
> conducting. In 1980 he published his discovery of HTLV.
> In the fall of 1977, a P4 (highest security category of laboratory,
> in which human pathogens are subjected to genetic
> manipulations) laboratory was officially opened in building
> 550 of Fort Detrick, MD, the Pentagon's main biological warfare
> research center. In an article in 'Der Spiegel`, Prof. Mollings
> point out that this type of gene manipulation was still extremely
> difficult in 1977.  One would have had to have a genius as
> great as Robert Gallo for this purpose, note the Segals.
> Lo and behold.
> In a supposed compliance with the international accord banning
> the research, production and storage of biological weapons, part
> of Fort Detrick was demilitarized and the virus section renamed
> the Frederick Cancer Research Facility.  It was put under the
> direction of the Cancer Research Institute in neighbouring
> Bethesda, whose director was no other than Robert Gallo.
> This happened in 1975, the year Gallo discovered HTLV.
> Explaining how the virus escaped, the Segals note that in
> the US,  biological agents are traditionally tested on
> prisoners who are  incarcerated for long periods, and who are
> promised  freedom if they survive the test. However, the initial
> HIV infection symptoms are mild and followed by a seemingly
> healthy patient. Those who conducted the research must have
> concluded that the new virus was...not so virulent that it could
> be considered for military use, and the test patients, who had
> seemingly recovered, were given their freedom. Most of the
> patients were professional  criminals and New York City, which is
> relatively close, offered them a suitable milieu.
> Moreover, the patients were exclusively men, many of them having
> a history of homosexuality and drug abuse, as is often the case in
> American prisons.  It is understandable why AIDS broke out
> precisely in 1979, precisely among men and among drug users,
> and precisely in New York City, assert the Segals. They go on to
> explain that whereas in cases of infection by means of sexual
> contact, incubation periods are two  years and more, while
> in cases of massive infection via blood  transfusions, as must
> have been the case with prisoners, incubation periods are shorter
> than a year.
> Thus, if the new virus was ready at the beginning of 1978 and if the
> experiments began without too much delay, then the first cases
> of full-blown  AIDS in 1979 were exactly the result that could
> have been expected.
> In the next three lengthy chapters, the Segals examine other
> theories, legends as they call them, of the origins of AIDS.
> Dissecting each claim, they show that they have no scientific
> standing, providing also the findings of other scientists.
> They also bring up the arguments of scientists and popular
> writers who have been at the task of discounting them as
> conspiracy theorists and show these writers' shortcomings.
> Interested readers will have to read the original
> article to follow those debates.
> I will only quote two more paragraphs: We often heard the
> argument that experiments with human volunteers are part
> of a barbaric past, and that they would be impossible in the
> US today... We wish to present one single document whose
> authenticity is beyond doubt.
> An investigative commission of the US House of Representatives
> presented in October 1986 a final report concerning the Manhattan
> Project.  According to this document, between 1945 and 1975
> at least 695 American  citizens were exposed to dangerous doses
> of radioactivity.  Some of them were prisoners who had
> volunteered, but they also included residents of old-age homes,
> inmates of insane asylums, handicapped people in nursing homes,
> and even  normal patients in public hospitals, most of them were
> subjected to these experiments without their permission.
> Thus the 'barbaric past' is not really a thing of the past.  It is
> remarkable that most of these experiments were carried out in
> university institutes and federal hospitals, all of which  are
> named in the report. Nonetheless, these facts remained secret
> until 1984, and even then a Congressional committee that was
> equipped with all the necessary authorization needed two years
> in order to bring these facts to life.
> We are often asked how the work on the AIDS virus could have
> been kept secret.  Now, experiments performed on a few dozen
> prisoners in a laboratory  that is subject to military security
> can be far more easily kept secret than  could be the Manhattan
> Project.


Can you provide the journal citation for Gondo et al.?  Also is there
any substantiation for the prisoner testing model for AIDS dissemination
the Segal's offer?  This should be a matter of record.

Seems that acceptance of such theories awaits better substantiation in
proof - the smoking gun.  Segals attempt to link a chain of
circumstantial evidence, and most folks will see that some of the links
are supported more by melodramatic implication that it could have
happened rather than offering fact.  Most of the links exist just as
well if the model were incorrect.  Do the Segal's address of criticism
by dialectic or by offering new fact?

More information about the Microbio mailing list