Earliest AIDS, Part I
muhero at globalnet.co.uk
Thu Feb 19 18:19:04 EST 1998
What makes you think that any government is competent enough (or cares
enough) to organise this type of conspiracy? Conspiracy theories are simply
cries for reassurance that the world is really under some sort of control.
Face it - it isn't. There are more bad things out there than anyone knows
about, and most of them are natural.
TRKeske wrote in message <19980219025000.VAA05818 at ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>EARLIEST AIDS, Part I
>I have found several new arguments to justify my contention that
>AIDS most probably did not exist before the late 1970s.
>The question is significant because claims of early AIDS are
>used as an argument against the possibility that AIDS might
>be a laboratory product.
>In several past postings, I pointed out how one HIV infection in
>1950 should have produced a billion by 1980, given an annual
>doubling. Obviously, we saw nothing even close to this.
>This is not to say that the growth curve is expected to be a
>smooth, perfect mathematical function. Of course, it can go
>faster and slower. But historical data shows that an annual
>doubling in the early years is a very good approximation to
>what really DID happen. Considering the unprotected blood
>supplies and complete lack of knowledge of the dangers, it should
>have spread much faster.
>There are additional reasons to doubt the claim made this month
>concerning the frozen blood sample from 1959, supposedly showing
>HIV in a man from the Belgian Congo.
>This is hardly the first time that it has occurred to anyone that we
>should be checking old blood samples. We've already had well
>over a decade of opportunity to analyze old blood samples,
>and would have little excuse for not having already done so.
>In fact, studies HAVE already been made. The Belgian Congo case
>does not merely represent a matter of new information, where
>previously we had none. It is in fact a CONTRADICTION of
>existing data, that has as much claim to legitimacy.
>In "The Evolution of the AIDS viruses", by David L. Robertson,
>phD, of the Laboratory of Structural and Genetic Information, in
>Marseilles, France, it states,
> "There is no firm evidence that HIV-1 existed, to epidemic
> levels, before the 1970s, on the contrary the evidence seems
> to indicate that it did not. For example, Dube and
> co-workers could not find any instances of HIV-positive
> blood in 250 Zairean frozen plasma samples all dating back
> to 1969 (Dube et al. 1994). This result is unlikely to be
> due to lack of detection as they successfully confirmed
> positive HTLV samples."
>Mind you, Zaire was one of the very hotbeds, one of the
>epicenters, of the epidemic. If AIDS existed in Africa in
>1959, it is very peculiar indeed that it could not be found
>even a full decade later, in an area that was so hard-hit.
>One person debating me on another newgroup claimed that
>AIDS did not spread rapidly at first, because it existed in
>remote villages, and finally took off after it entered an
>The "remote village' claim has its own difficulties,
>which leads me to suspect government disinformation
>as a better explanation.
>In the "AIDS Knowledge Base", maintained by the University of
>California, I find a claim:
> "The earliest AIDS case in the United States documented with
> HIV-positive serum and tissues occurred in 1968 in a
> 15 year-old black male living in St. Louis, who died on an
> aggressive disseminated Kaposi's sarcoma."
>Notice that this is stated as fact, not even qualified as
>something merely suspected or suggested, as was the
>case with the frozen blood from the Belgian Congo.
>The St. Louis case shows a similar weakness. With a 10-year
>average incubation period for AIDS (according to CDC), the
>original infection would have been about 1958. This should
>have led to about 4 million in infections in the U.S. by 1980,
>with annual doubling.
>St. Louis- that is a hell of a "remote village". Another excuse
>would be needed to explain this one away.
>Interestingly, St. Louis was NOT one the cities among the
>epicenters of the epidemic. So, we WERE able to
>find HIV in old blood, in locations where AIDS did not
>break out as dramatically, yet we were NOT able to find
>HIV in old blood, in locations where AIDS did later
>break out dramatically. Exactly the opposite of what
>you should expect.
>What accounts for the peculiarities?
>Who guards the blood samples? What security precautions
>are taken to ensure that no one doctors them with old
>samples of virus? Is there a continually running video
>camera? Is there a 24-hour armed guard? Is the blood
>totally out of government possession, in independent
>hands, at all times?
>The most distinguished scientists in the world are not
>prepared for the possibility of games of intrigue. They
>don't expect it, don't plan for it, don't guard against it,
>don't even consider it as a possible factor. They will
>assume, at face value, that they can trust their own
>government, that no one will break into their labs.
>For a government with a long record of radiation
>experiments on human guinea pigs, Tuskegee
>experiments, Watergate scandals, Kennedy assassinations,
>etc- that is a bad assumption.
>The only hints of the Big Lie that you might ever see
>are the contradictions that can't be explained away,
>as the lies trip over themselves in small but telltale
>In part II, I'll discuss yet another straightforward
>contradiction that doesn't seem to be occurring to
More information about the Microbio