Earliest AIDS, Part I

David dbwalke at ibm.net
Fri Feb 20 22:29:29 EST 1998


There are several points which I would like to make.  First and
foremost, you claim that "one person
debating me on another newsgroup claimed that AIDS did not spread
rapidly at first, because it
existed in remote villages, and finally took off after it entered an
urban area."  This is blatantly untrue.
I posted that message in response to your request for intelligent
discourse on the subject.  I made no
such claim; I was mentioning  information from Level 4: Virus Hunters of
the CDC by McCormick
and Fisher-Hoch.  The fact that the sera collected in Zaire suggested
that approximately 0.8% of the
residents in that region (Yambuku) were infected with HIV.
Specifically,  five of the six hundred sera
showed antibody to HIV.  I included the author's theory that increasing
urbanization (and
accompanying social change) had led to the increased incidence.  This is
not the same thing as saying
"entered an urban area."  Furthermore you seem to have missed the entire
point of that message,
which was that for AIDS to have first entered the general population via
infected prisoners released
in 1975 is extraordinarily unlikely given that sera from 1976 showed
antibodies in 0.8% of the
samples from Zaire and 0.9% of the population tested in the Sudan.

The "remote village' claim has its own difficulties,
which leads me to suspect government disinformation
as a better explanation.

This is quite a jump, especially considering that you did not elucidate
even one of those difficulties.

 "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."

What percentage would be expected in these samples?  Were these
collected from rural or urban
areas?  If the virus was present at the same levels as the 1976 sera
McCormick referred to, one
would expect that 2 of those samples might reveal antibodies.  It
doesn't seem that concrete
conclusions could be drawn from this especially given that, as mentioned
before, only 5 of 600
samples in 1976 contained the antibodies to HIV.


                    D. Walker

TRKeske wrote:

> 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
> urban area.
>
> 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
> ways.
>
> In part II, I'll discuss yet another straightforward
> contradiction that doesn't seem to be occurring to
> anyone, yet.
>
> Tom Keske
> Boston, Mass.






More information about the Microbio mailing list